Former US President Ronald Reagan’s Wisdom: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1KhCkVzbzR/

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “When communities are empowered to participate in planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight, development becomes more responsive, transparent, and sustainable.” — President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, remarks on local governance and rural development.
Relevance: This statement connects public-project implementation and oversight with transparency and sustainable development. It does not specifically prescribe a division of responsibilities between legislators and implementing agencies. Relevance: This statement connects public-project implementation and oversight with transparency and sustainable development. It does not specifically prescribe a division of responsibilities between legislators and implementing agencies.

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com.

Former President George Manneh Weah: “It is my belief that the most effective way to directly impact the poor, and to narrow the gap between rich and poor, is to ensure that public resources do not end up in the pockets of Government officials.”— Former President George Manneh Weah, inaugural address, January 22, 2018. Relevance: The quotation emphasizes protecting public resources from corruption, a central concern when legislators exercise oversight of development funds.

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: “We must base our approach on the core principles of democracy, accountability, free enterprise, good governance, respect for human rights, and equitable distribution of our natural resources.” — Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, address at Marquette University. Relevance: This quotation establishes accountability and good governance as principles of national development.

In democratic governments, development funds are meant to improve citizens’ lives through roads, schools, clinics, water systems, agricultural programs, markets, and other public services.

Because these projects are visible and politically valuable, elected officials often seek a direct role in deciding how money is spent.

In Liberia, legislators understandably want to respond to urgent needs in their counties and districts.

Constituents may ask their representatives to repair a bridge, construct a clinic, provide scholarships, or support a community development initiative.

However, the desire to deliver visible benefits must not erase the constitutional distinction between making laws and implementing laws.

Legislators should not directly handle, administer, procure, or disburse development funds.

Their proper role is to approve budgets, represent constituent priorities, enact development policies, and rigorously oversee the executive branch’s use of public resources.

This argument is not based on the belief that lawmakers are unimportant to development.

On the contrary, legislators are essential to national development.

They control the “power of the purse”: they debate national priorities, approve appropriations, and investigate whether public money is being used legally and effectively.

Yet when legislators directly control development projects, accountability weakens, conflicts of interest arise, and the constitutional separation of powers blurs.

Liberia should therefore maintain a system in which the executive branch implements development projects while the Legislature monitors performance, investigates failures, and ensures that public resources reach communities fairly.

The Constitutional Logic of Separation of Powers:

The principle of separation of powers divides governmental responsibilities among distinct institutions.

The Legislature makes laws and authorizes public spending.

The executive branch, comprising the President, ministers, ministries, agencies, and local implementing bodies, administers and enforces laws and executes the national budget.

The judiciary interprets laws and resolves disputes.

This division is not merely a theoretical ideal. It is a practical mechanism for preventing the concentration and abuse of power.

In Liberia, the Constitution gives the Legislature substantial authority over public finances.

Article 34 provides that the President submits the national budget to the Legislature, while Article 35 establishes that appropriation bills originate in the House of Representatives.

These provisions give legislators enormous influence over national priorities.

They can question ministers, amend budget allocations, demand reports, summon public officials, and approve or reject spending proposals.

The Legislature therefore has the tools to protect communities without becoming a project-executing institution.

In my graduate-level public administration, public policy and business analytics classes at state of Minnesota, first University, and the prestigious,acutely knowledgeable academic focus, and one of the best leading research institutions in public administration,public policy and business analytics in the United States,Hamline University, taught by hands-on, experienced professors, I learned that, by contrast, the executive branch is designed to perform the technical and administrative functions required for development.

At the well erudite,renowned and distinguished scholarly academy Catholic University of St. Thomas, a leader in engineering and software systems, where I studied software systems at the graduate level, I learned that building a road or health center requires feasibility studies, engineering designs, environmental assessments, procurement processes, contractor supervision, quality inspections, payment certification, and maintenance planning.

These tasks demand trained civil servants, accountants, engineers, procurement specialists, and project managers.

Ministries and agencies are established for precisely these purposes.

For example, the Ministry of Public Works has technical responsibilities for roads and public infrastructure.

The Ministry of Health manages health-sector programs.

The Ministry of Finance and Development Planning coordinates fiscal policy and budget execution.

Legislators should hold these institutions accountable, but they should not replace them.

When lawmakers both approve money and administer it, they become judges of their own conduct.

A legislator who helps choose contractors, manage project accounts, or direct payments can not credibly exercise independent oversight of the same transaction.

The result is an accountability vacuum: the institution that should investigate poor performance may have an interest in concealing it.

Direct Legislative Control Creates Conflicts of Interest:

The strongest argument against legislators directly handling development funds is conflict of interest.

Legislators have a duty to serve the public, not to manage funds in ways that enhance their personal or electoral interests.

Development projects can easily become instruments of political patronage when elected representatives are permitted to control implementation.

For example, a legislator may favor projects located in politically supportive communities rather than areas with the greatest need.

A representative may recommend a contractor who is a relative, friend, political donor, or party supporter.

Funds may be used for projects that are highly visible before elections but poorly designed, incomplete, or unsustainable afterward.

Even when no money is stolen, a system that lets legislators control implementation can produce inefficient and inequitable development choices.

This problem is particularly serious in countries with limited administrative capacity and weak monitoring institutions.

Liberia continues to face major development needs, especially in rural roads, electricity access, public health, education, sanitation, and employment.

Therefore, allocate scarce funds based on objective criteria: population needs, poverty levels, technical feasibility, maintenance costs, and long-term national development plans.

These decisions should not be driven primarily by individual lawmakers’ political interests.

Legislators can and should advocate for their constituencies.

They should consult citizens and bring local needs into budget debates.

But advocacy is different from administration.

A legislator may legitimately argue that a district needs a health center; the Ministry of Health should determine whether the proposal meets staffing, equipment, accessibility, and sustainability requirements.

Similarly, a legislator may identify a damaged road; the Ministry of Public Works should assess its design, cost, procurement method, and relationship to the national road network.

The Philippine Experience: A Clear Warning Against Post-Enactment Control:

A powerful international example comes from the Philippines, a developing democracy that struggled for years with legislative “pork barrel” funds.

The Philippine Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) let legislators identify projects and direct public funds toward them after the national budget was enacted.

Although the program was defended as a way to bring development closer to local communities, it became associated with patronage, weak accountability, and corruption allegations.

In the landmark 2013 case ‘Belgica v. Executive Secretary (Ochoa)’, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared the PDAF system unconstitutional.

The Court concluded that legislators’ authority to participate in project identification, fund release, and implementation after the budget’s passage violated the separation of powers.

In other words, legislators could appropriate funds, but they could not continue exercising executive control over those funds once the budget became law.

The Court’s reasoning is relevant to Liberia.

Budget approval is a legislative act.

Project execution is an executive act.

If lawmakers retain operational control after appropriating funds, they cross from lawmaking into administration.

The Philippine experience also shows that a program may begin with a well-intentioned goal bringing benefits to constituents, but still become a system vulnerable to misuse.

The danger is not limited to outright theft.

The greater danger is the institutional distortion that occurs when public resources become closely tied to individual lawmakers’ political interests.

India’s MPLADS Model: A More Limited Alternative:

India provides a useful contrast.

Under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), members of Parliament may recommend local development works in their constituencies.

However, they do not directly receive, disburse, procure, or implement the funds.

District authorities and government agencies execute approved projects.

In ‘Bhim Singh v. Union of India’ (2010), the Supreme Court of India upheld MPLADS partly because it limited members of Parliament to recommending works.

They had no direct authority to spend the money or execute the projects.

The Court emphasized that district authorities remained responsible for implementation and accountable under the executive system.

India’s model is not free of criticism.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has documented weaknesses in monitoring, delays, incomplete works, and inadequate records in the administration of MPLADS.

Nevertheless, its institutional design offers an important lesson: legislators can communicate local needs and recommend projects without becoming project managers or financial controllers.

The line between recommendation and implementation is essential.

Liberia could adopt similar safeguards.

Legislators could participate in structured district development consultations, identify priority needs through public hearings, and recommend projects during budget formulation.

Yet ministries, county authorities, and professionally qualified implementing agencies should administer the funds, under the supervision and implementation of the executive branch of government.

All procurement should follow the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission framework, and all expenditures should be recorded through the national public financial management system.

Kenya and the Risks of Constituency Funds:

Kenya’s Constituency Development Fund, later restructured as the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), also illustrates the constitutional difficulties caused by legislative involvement in local projects.

The fund was created to direct resources toward constituency-level needs.

However, its structure has faced repeated legal challenges because members of Parliament were perceived as exercising excessive influence over executive functions.

In ‘Institute for Social Accountability v. National Assembly and Others’, Kenyan courts raised serious concerns about whether constituency fund arrangements violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Critics argued that members of Parliament, whose central duty is legislation and oversight, should not effectively supervise or influence executive spending at the constituency level.

The legal controversies in Kenya show that even when a fund is intended to decentralize development, the mechanism must avoid turning lawmakers into administrators.

The lesson for Liberia is not that local development funding is inherently wrong.

Local communities need resources, and national development should not be concentrated only in Monrovia.

The lesson is that local development funds require clear institutional responsibility.

County and district development plans can be funded through the national budget, but implementation must remain with accountable executive institutions.

Legislators should ask whether projects were completed, whether contracts were properly awarded, whether facilities are functional, and whether citizens received value for money.

They should not be the people selecting vendors, approving invoices, or controlling bank accounts.

Liberia’s Public Financial Management Needs Clear Lines of Responsibility:

Liberia has made important efforts to strengthen financial governance through its Public Financial Management Act and related accountability institutions.

The Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, the General Auditing Commission, the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission, the Public Procurement and Concessions Commission, and legislative committees all help safeguard public resources.

These institutions work best when their responsibilities are clear.

The Public Financial Management Act assigns important duties for budgeting, execution, accounting,reporting, and control to executive institutions.

The General Auditing Commission, meanwhile, is responsible for auditing public accounts and reporting on whether money has been spent lawfully and effectively.

The Legislature should use audit findings aggressively.

When audits reveal unsupported expenditures, abandoned projects, procurement violations, or poor recordkeeping, legislative committees should hold public hearings and require corrective action.

A stronger legislative oversight system would include several measures.

First, legislative committees should require ministries to submit quarterly reports on development projects, including location, budget, contractor, completion date, and implementation status.

Second, these reports should be publicly available so citizens, journalists, professional civil society organizations, and community leaders can monitor projects.

Third, the Legislature shouldd insist that every major development project have measurable outputs and outcomes.

For example, a school project should not be judged only by whether a building was constructed; it should also be assessed according to whether it has teachers, furniture, water, sanitation, and students.

Fourth, lawmakers should strengthen the role of county development planning processes.

Citizens should help identify priorities through transparent consultations, rather than receiving projects based on the discretion of individual politicians.

Fifth, legislative committees should coordinate with the General Auditing Commission and the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission when evidence suggests misuse of funds.

These approaches would allow legislators to remain powerful advocates for their constituents while preserving institutional accountability.

Responding to the Argument for Direct Legislative Funds:

Supporters of direct development funds may argue that legislators understand local needs better than distant ministries.

This argument has some merit. National agencies can be bureaucratic, slow, and disconnected from rural communities.

A ministry in Monrovia may not immediately know that a bridge in Sinoe, River Gee, Grand Kru,Lofa, Grand Gedeh, River Cess,Grand Bassa,or Maryland County has become impassable.

Legislators can serve as an important link between citizens and the national government.

However, better local knowledge does not justify direct financial control.

The appropriate solution is to improve consultation, decentralization, and responsiveness within the executive branch, not to allow legislators to become implementers.

Legislators should demand that ministries establish transparent local planning systems, publish project information, and respond promptly to verified community needs.

They should also use their budget authority to reward effective agencies and challenge failing ones.

Another argument is that direct funds allow legislators to produce results quickly.

Yet speed without controls can be expensive.

Projects hurried for political reasons may be poorly designed, overpriced, or abandoned.

A road built without drainage may wash away during heavy rains.

A clinic constructed without staff or medical supplies may remain empty.

A water project built without maintenance plans may stop functioning within months.

Effective development requires not only construction but also planning, quality control, recurrent funding, and maintenance.

Our motherland, Liberia’s development challenges demand accountable and effective government, not blurred institutional responsibilities.

Our legislators should not directly handle development funds because doing so conflicts with the principle of separation of powers, creates opportunities for patronage and conflicts of interest, and undermines the Legislature’s capacity to oversee public spending independently.

The Legislature’s authority over the national budget is already substantial.

Its responsibility is to approve public priorities, represent citizens, scrutinize executive performance, investigate misuse, and ensure that development reaches all Liberians fairly.

Experiences from the Philippines, India, and Kenya demonstrate that legislative involvement in constituency development funds can generate serious constitutional and governance problems.

The Philippine Supreme Court’s rejection of post-enactment legislative control is a particularly strong warning: lawmakers must not continue exercising executive authority after they have appropriated public funds.

India’s more limited model shows that legislators may recommend local priorities without directly managing money. Liberia should follow this principle.

The best role for Liberian lawmakers is not that of contractor, procurement officer, cashier, or project manager.

It is that of representative, lawmaker, budget guardian, and watchdog.

By maintaining this distinction, Liberia can protect public funds, strengthen democratic institutions, and ensure that development serves citizens rather than political interests.

Liberian traditional wisdom offers an important contribution to the question of who deserves the name “reformer.” The saying, “One tree does not make a forest,” reminds us that national transformation can not depend on one individual alone. The proverb, “The big man is they alone represent the center of leadership. And “Empty pots make a lot of noise” warns against mistaking political rhetoric for meaningful achievement.

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

Bassa proverb: “On the old mat is woven the new,” offers a perspective on themselves

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: Democratic reform and cooperation: “Liberia’s contributions to the Security Council’s discussions and decisions” are shaped by its experience in “democratic reform, political transition, and governance.” Source: President Boakai’s address to the 80th United Nations General Assembly, September 2025.

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: Accountability and transparency: “Words like accountability, transparency, and reform are not just the calling card of some foreign donor.” Source: Sirleaf’s 2011 speech at Harvard University. She connected these principles to African governments’ decisions and responsibilities.

Former President George Manneh Weah:Equality and freedom: “Equality and freedom are never just a final destination that a people or a nation reaches.” Source: Weah’s inaugural address, January 22, 2018. He argued that these rights must be measured against leaders’ actions, policies, laws, and purposes.

John Stuart Mill:The moral duty to oppose wrongdoing
“He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name.” Source: Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, 1867. Relevance: A genuine reformer must be willing to challenge wrongdoing, even when it is committed by their own political party or allies.

Edmund Burke: The importance of collective responsibility: “When bad men can also struggle.” Source: Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, 1770. Application: Reform is not achieved by one person alone; collective groups can be essential to democratic change.

In every society that calls itself democratic, the word ‘reformer’ carries powerful moral and political weight.

It suggests courage, public service, intellectual seriousness, and a willingness to confront injustice.

Reformers are commonly understood as people who seek to improve existing institutions rather than destroy society or merely replace one ruling group with another.

Yet the term has become increasingly easy to claim and hard to deserve.

Political parties, advocacy organizations, leaders, law enforcement, activists, and even wealthy business figures often present themselves as reformers simply because they criticize the government, oppose the status quo, or promise change.

However, opposition is not automatically reform.

Change is not always improvement.

A person or group may speak the language of democracy while practicing corruption, self-enrichment, exclusion, or manipulation.

To recover democracy’s true meaning and moral sense, society must ask an important question: who should be called a reformer?

Is reformism a title that an individual can seize for himself or keep?

Is it a label that a political organization may grant itself? Or is it a title that must be earned through conduct, sacrifice, integrity, and public recognition?

A meaningful answer requires comparing individual reformers and reformist groups, as well as comparing genuine reform with false reform.

Both individuals and groups can contribute to democratic progress, but neither deserves the name “reformer” merely by claiming it.

A true reformer is defined by a commitment to the common good, moral integrity, intellectual excellence, accountability, and measurable improvement in ordinary people’s lives.

At its core, democracy is more than elections, political parties, and speeches about freedom.

Democracy is a moral system of public responsibility.

It rests on the idea that government, lawmakers, the judiciary, political parties, and appointed officials should serve citizens, not exploit them.

It requires leaders to respect human dignity, listen to criticism, obey laws, protect minority rights, and create fair opportunities for people to improve their lives.

When democracy works, it lets citizens help shape the society in which they live.

When democracy is weakened, political power becomes a private tool for a small number of people who use public resources for personal gain.

For this reason, democratic societies need reformers.

Every society has institutions that become matters most; neglecting education may fail children, and care may be inaccessible.

Elections may be controlled by money, intimidation, or misinformation.

Economic systems may produce wealth for a few while leaving many families trapped in unemployment, hunger, and insecurity.

Reformers recognize these failures and work to correct them.

They do not simply complain about the country’s problems, or legislative issues; they offer practical, ethical, and inclusive ways to solve them.

Individual reformers also play a particular role in this process. We often remember reform through the names of strong individuals: activists, writers, lawmakers, lawyers, teachers, and judicial officials who speak when others are silent.

An individual can become a reformer by refusing to accept injustice as normal.

Such a person may expose corruption, defend oppressed communities, organize peaceful resistance, propose new laws, or educate the public about issues that powerful interests prefer to hide.

Individual reformers are often important because they provide moral clarity.

They can say, “This is wrong,” even when they face criticism or personal loss.

However, individual leadership has both strengths and limitations.

Its strength lies in courage, vision, and responsibility.

A principled individual can inspire others and make complex problems understandable.

In moments of crisis, people may need a leader who can articulate a clear moral direction.

Yet individual reform can become dangerous when it turns into personality worship.

A leader who begins by serving the people may eventually believe that they alone represent the people.

When that happens, reform becomes less democratic. The leader may reject criticism, silence opponents, and use the language of national renewal to justify personal power.

Therefore, no individual should be able to appoint himself or herself a reformer simply through speeches, slogans, or popularity.

A self-awarded title has little value.

If a politician repeatedly calls himself a reformer while stealing public money, intimidating opponents, or promoting relatives and allies, the label is false.

If an activist claims to defend the poor but uses the poor only as an audience for personal fame, that claim is also false.

Genuine reform requires consistency between words and actions.

The public should judge reformers not by how loudly they announce their virtue but by whether their conduct demonstrates it.

Reformist groups, such as political movements, lawmakers, civil society organizations, unions, student associations, professional bodies, and community coalitions, are equally important.

In some ways, groups may be more effective than individuals because social problems are too large for one person to solve alone.

Poverty, institutional corruption, traditional or ethnic discrimination, poor public services, and unequal access to education require collective action.

A reformist group can bring together people with different knowledge, talents, and experiences.

Lawyers can address legal problems, economists can propose policies, educators can train communities, journalists can investigate wrongdoing,educated policymakers can advance good policies, and local organizers can connect national issues to daily life.

A group also has the potential to make reform more democratic.

Instead of relying on one heroic leader, a healthy reform movement distributes responsibility among many people.

It listens to citizens, debates ideas, develops policies, and creates systems of accountability.

In this sense, group reformism can protect democracy from the weaknesses of individual ambition.

A leader may fail, become corrupt, or leave office, but a strong institution can continue serving the public.

Reform should not depend entirely on the personality of one person.

It should become part of the political culture and public institutions of the country.

Nevertheless, groups can misuse the term “reformist” just as easily as individuals can.

A political party may adopt the word reform in its name while behaving exactly like the corrupt institutions it criticizes.

It may promise transparency but hide its finances.

It may speak about equality while being controlled by wealthy donors.

It may condemn authoritarianism while refusing to allow internal debate.

It may claim to represent ordinary citizens while selecting candidates only from powerful families or privileged social classes.

In such cases, the organization uses reform as a marketing strategy rather than a moral commitment.

The difference between a genuine reformist group and a false one is found in its internal practices as well as its public promises.

A true reform organization should practice democracy within itself.

It should allow members to question leaders, participate in decision-making, and demand accountability.

It should keep transparent financial records, set clear ethical standards, and adopt policies that benefit society rather than a small inner circle.

It should be willing to correct its own mistakes.

A movement that cannot reform itself cannot credibly claim that it will reform a nation.

This comparison between individuals and groups reveals an important truth: neither one has an automatic right to the title of reformer.

An individual may possess vision but lack accountability.

A group may possess numbers and organization but lack moral direction.

The most effective reform often occurs when principled individuals work within accountable groups.

The individual contributes courage and moral leadership; the group contributes participation, continuity, expertise, and institutional strength.

Together, they can transform public demands into lasting social change.

Another essential comparison is between genuine reformers and those who merely imitate reformers.

Genuine reformers pursue the common good. False reformers pursue power, money, revenge, or status.

Genuine reformers understand that political authority is a public trust.

False reformers treat political authority as private property.

Genuine reformers ask how society can become more just for everyone, especially the poor, excluded, and vulnerable.

False reformers ask how political change can benefit themselves, their families, their business partners, or their loyal supporters.

This distinction is especially important in countries where the semblance of democracy exists only in appearance.

Some governments hold elections but do not protect free speech.

Some leaders speak of the people while weakening courts, attacking journalists, or manipulating voters.

Some political figures describe themselves as champions of the poor while accumulating luxurious homes, foreign bank accounts, and private businesses.

Their public language may sound democratic, but their behavior reveals exploitation.

They are not reformers. They are political opportunists.

The public has a responsibility in this process as well.

Journalists and citizens should not give the title of reformer too easily.

Democracy requires an informed population capable of asking difficult questions.

Who finances this leader or organization?

What policies have they actually implemented?

What laws have they introduced in legislative sessions, or advance or seconded?

Do their promises match their behavior?

Do they respect criticism? Do they protect public resources?

Do they defend the rights of people who disagree with them?

Have they improved schools, hospitals, jobs, justice systems, and public safety, since receivong developmentfunds(Whoch of courseis undemocratic. My next articles will address this)?

These questions help citizens distinguish between real public servants and performers who use reformist language to gain support.

The image of citizens watching “like eagles” is meaningful.

Eagles are known for their sharp vision from above.

In a democratic society, citizens must observe political leaders with similar precision.

They should not be blinded by emotional speeches, ethnic loyalties, party symbols, religious claims, or temporary gifts.

They must see the larger pattern of a leader’s behavior.

At the same time, citizens must listen carefully, like elephants whose hearing and sensitivity allow them to recognize movements in their environment.

Political deception often begins quietly: a small attack on a journalist, an unexplained public contract, a threat against an opponent, or a rule changed for the benefit of those in power.

If citizens pay attention early, they can protect democracy before corruption becomes normal.

A genuine reformer also understands that the poor are not political tools.

People living in social, economic, and political poverty should not be used as campaign decorations or objects of pity.

They are citizens with intelligence, dignity, and rights.

Reform means creating conditions in which people can participate fully in society.

This includes access to quality education, decent work, affordable health care, fair courts, safe communities, and political representation.

It also means removing barriers that prevent people from speaking for themselves.

Reform is not charity from above; it is the expansion of justice and opportunity.

Moral integrity is therefore central to reformism.

Intellectual excellence matters because reformers must understand complicated social problems and develop realistic solutions.

Good intentions alone are not enough. But intelligence without morality can be destructive.

A clever politician may know how to win elections, manipulate public opinion, and control institutions, yet still cause great harm.

Likewise, moral passion without practical knowledge may lead to ineffective policies.

The true reformer needs both: the ethical commitment to serve the public and the intellectual discipline to design responsible change.

The title of reformer should not be treated as a personal possession, a political slogan, or an advertisement.

It is a serious moral description that must be earned.

Both individuals and groups(particularly lawmakers, political parties)can be reformers, but only when they demonstrate a sustained commitment to the common good.

Individuals must show courage, humility, and accountability.

Groups must practice internal democracy, transparency, and respect for the people they claim to represent.

Above all, genuine reformers must improve the lives of citizens rather than use citizens to improve their own lives.

Societies should stop honoring those who wear the name of reform while practicing corruption, greed, and deception.

The reformer is not a predator feeding on public resources, nor a performer seeking applause from the suffering of the masses.

The reformer is a servant of democratic progress: someone who helps move people from social exclusion, economic hardship, political powerlessness, and institutional neglect toward dignity, justice, and meaningful participation.

The people are watching.

They see more than leaders may think, and they hear more than politicians may admit.

In the end, it is not the claim to reform that matters.

It is the character, conduct, and consequences of those who make the claim.

Former President Sirleaf: Liberia has been doing the same thing over and over, same structures, same type of policies, same type of attitudes, and mindset. It is time for change; Africa is changing, the world is changing, and Liberia can not be left behind. It will not happen until we agree to change our country. We have to stop following the United States of America. Let’s join the new area of sovereignty and respectability that Africa is pushing.” Source: Facebook, Voice of Liberia. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18DEF7UL35/

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: China’s Economic Agenda: In discussions regarding China’s role in Africa, such as in interviews with the Council on Foreign Relations, former President Sirleaf noted that China’s primary motivation was gaining rapid access to raw materials to sustain its domestic growth.

• Former President Sirleaf: Credited Chinese investors and government programs with moving quickly and flexibly to address critical infrastructure needs, such as roads and public buildings, when traditional Western partners were more cautious.
• Relations with the United States: Former President Sirleaf consistently maintained that Liberia’s partnership with Beijing did not conflict with its historic and strategic relationship with Washington.

The Inquirer Monrovia: February 26, 2008. By: Patrick K. Wrokpoh: www.allafrica.com/Liberia:

“America Has No Problem With China-Liberia’s Relations”

“The office of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf says Liberia’s traditional friend, the United States of America, has no problem with the existing ties between Liberia and the People’s Republic of China.
President Sirleaf’s Press Secretary, Cyrus Wleh Badio, who briefed Executive Mansion reporters yesterday on details of President Sirleaf’s meeting with George W. Bush last Thursday, quoted President Bush as making it clear that his country has no problem with Liberia’s relations with China.”

“Liberia is a country with a rich history, but it has been slow to progress.” — President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Independence Day Address, 2024.

“Reversal of multilateralism is not an option for a just and peaceful world.” — President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, UN General Assembly Address, 2025.

“We call for greater inclusion, effectiveness, and respect for international law.” — President Boakai, UN General Assembly, 2025.

“Liberia remains positively engaged with its partners and friends at the bilateral and multilateral levels…with keen focus on national interest.” —Former President George Weah, 2021 State of the Nation.

Former President Weah: Identified Liberia’s foreign-policy objectives as including: “The preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country “

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s 2006 Inaugural Address: “Good neighborliness, non-interference, peaceful co-existence, regional cooperation and integration.”

Hon. Alexander B. Cummings, ANC Political Opposition Leader: In his 2020 address, Cummings recalled Liberia’s founding declaration in these terms: “We were free, equal to all nations, and not the subject of any nation.”

Hon. Benoni Urey — Opposition Political Leader: Discussing investment, he argued, “Foreign investment must also be prioritized.”

Former President Julius Nyerere — Tanzania, 1968: “No nation has the right to make decisions for another nation; no people for another people.”

“Mutually beneficial co-operation among the nations of the world.” — Former President Nelson Mandela, Non-Aligned Movement Address, 1998.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o — Kenyan Novelist: “Africa actually enriches Europe.”

Ngũgĩ argued that:
“Economic and political control of a people can never be complete without cultural control.”

Former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s statement that Liberia must stop repeating “the same thing over and over”, the same structures, policies, attitudes, and mindsets, raises an important question about the country’s political and economic direction.

Her argument that Liberia should not merely follow the United States but should instead join Africa’s emerging “era of sovereignty and respectability” reflects a powerful appeal for national self-determination.

At the same time, this appeal must be compared with the position expressed by her office in 2008, when it stated that the United States had no problem with Liberia’s relationship with the People’s Republic of China.

The two statements are not necessarily contradictory.

Both recognize that Liberia can maintain relations with multiple global powers.

However, they differ significantly in tone, political urgency, and implied criticism of Liberia’s historical dependence on the United States.

The central issue is whether Liberians should now heed Sirleaf’s call for change, even though she served as president from 2006 to 2018 and had considerable opportunity to advance the reforms she later described as necessary.

The answer should be neither an unquestioning yes nor a dismissive no.

Liberians should take the substance of her message seriously because Liberia still faces structural challenges that require a new national mindset.

Yet they should also evaluate her words critically, because leadership is measured not only by speeches after office but also by decisions made while holding power.

Former President Sirleaf’s legacy demonstrates both the possibilities and limitations of reform within a deeply dependent political and economic system.

Former President Sirleaf’s later statement is fundamentally a critique of repetition.

She argues that Liberia has continued with the same structures, policies, attitudes, and mentality despite changes occurring across Africa and the wider world.

This observation has strong historical relevance.

Liberia’s political history has often followed recurring patterns: centralized authority, elite control over resources, weak public institutions, dependence on foreign capital, inadequate investment in rural communities, and a tendency to expect external partners to solve domestic problems.

The country’s civil wars, public health crises, youth unemployment, poor infrastructure, and persistent corruption have all exposed the consequences of weak institutions and uneven development.

When former President Sirleaf says that Liberia must change, she is therefore not merely speaking about foreign policy.

She is speaking about national political culture.

A country can not become sovereign simply by announcing independence from foreign influence.

Sovereignty requires functioning institutions, accountable leadership, economic productivity, social cohesion, and citizens who believe that public office exists to serve the nation rather than private interests.

Liberia’s problem has never been only its relationships with powerful countries.

Every small country needs external partnerships.

The deeper problem is whether those relationships are managed from a position of national strategy or from a position of dependency and political vulnerability.

This distinction matters especially when comparing former President Sirleaf’s call to move away from “following the United States” with the 2008 statement on China-Liberia relations.

According to a report in The Inquirer Newspaper, published on www.allafrica.com/Liberia, former President Sirleaf’s office said the United States had no problem with Liberia’s existing ties to China.

The 2008 statement was diplomatic and reassuring.

It suggested that Liberia did not need to treat relations with Washington and Beijing as mutually exclusive.

Rather than framing China as a threat to Liberia’s traditional friendship with the United States, the statement presented the two relationships as compatible.

In practical terms, that position made sense. Liberia emerged from years of conflict with enormous reconstruction needs.

Roads, electricity, schools, hospitals, water systems, ports, and public institutions required major investment.

The United States remained an important historic partner, especially in areas such as governance, education, security, humanitarian assistance, and public health.

China, meanwhile, was becoming an increasingly significant actor across Africa through infrastructure projects, trade, loans, technical assistance, and diplomatic engagement.

For Liberia, cultivating relationships with both countries was not necessarily ideological inconsistency; it was a matter of national necessity.

The major difference between the 2008 position and the later statement lies in emphasis.

In 2008, former President Sirleaf’s administration appeared focused on assuring both the United States and China that Liberia’s diplomacy would remain balanced.

This cautious approach suited a postwar government seeking international legitimacy and investment.

Liberia could not afford to alienate the United States, which had played a major role in supporting the country’s recovery. Nor could it ignore China’s growing economic influence.

The message was essentially one of diplomatic inclusion: Liberia could work with China without abandoning its historic relationship with the United States of America.

By contrast, the latter statement has a more forceful and transformational tone.

It suggests that Liberia’s long habit of looking to the United States for direction may have become an obstacle to independent national development.

The phrase “We have to stop following the United States of America” should not necessarily be interpreted as a demand to end diplomatic relations with America.

Such an interpretation would be unrealistic and potentially harmful.

Instead, the statement can be read as a warning against psychological, political, and economic dependence.

Former President Sirleaf appears to be challenging Liberians to stop treating U.S. approval as the primary measure of national success.

This is an important distinction. A sovereign Liberia can maintain strong relations with the United States while refusing to be defined by those relations.

It can cooperate with China while demanding transparency, fair contracts, local employment, environmental protections, and long-term benefits for Liberian citizens.

It can partner with the European Union, ECOWAS, the African Union, India, Brazil, the Gulf states, and multilateral institutions without surrendering its national priorities.

Genuine sovereignty is not isolation. It is the capacity to choose partnerships based on the interests of the Liberian people.

Nevertheless, former President Sirleaf’s critics have reason to ask why this call for a new mindset was not more fully implemented during her presidency.

She inherited a country devastated by civil war, and it would be unfair to ignore the difficult conditions under which she governed.

Her administration helped restore international confidence in Liberia, secured debt relief, attracted donor support, rebuilt elements of state administration, and guided the country through major crises, including the Ebola epidemic.

Her election itself was historically significant, both for Liberia and Africa, as she became Africa’s first elected female head of state.

These accomplishments should not be minimized.

Yet her administration also faced serious criticism for failing to transform the very structures she later condemned.

Corruption remained a persistent concern. Economic growth did not sufficiently improve the lives of many ordinary Liberians.

Youth unemployment and underemployment remained widespread. Public services, especially outside Monrovia, continued to be weak.

The management of natural resources and concession agreements often raised questions about transparency, community benefits, and the distribution of national wealth.

Many citizens believed that political and economic power remained concentrated among a relatively small group of elites.

These criticisms do not mean that Sirleaf did nothing. Rather, they illustrate how difficult it is to reform a state where institutions are fragile and expectations of government are high.

They also show that political will alone is not enough.

A president may introduce reforms, but lasting change requires a civil service capable of enforcing laws, a legislature willing to exercise oversight, courts able to act independently, journalists free to investigate wrongdoing, and citizens prepared to demand accountability.

In Liberia, the problem of “same structures” cannot be blamed on one leader alone, even though every president bears responsibility for the choices made during his or her administration.

The question, then, is whether Sirleaf’s statement should be rejected because she did not fully achieve the change she now advocates.

That would be too simplistic. Political leaders can recognize unfinished work, and former leaders can still make valid observations about national problems.

A message should be judged by its truth as well as by the messenger’s record.

Liberia does need institutional reform, a stronger national identity, economic diversification, and a foreign policy based on self-respect.

If Sirleaf’s statement encourages citizens to think more critically about dependency, it has value.

However, Liberians should not simply “heed” the message in a passive sense.

They should convert it into concrete demands.

Calls for sovereignty must be matched by specific policies. For example, Liberia should develop a long-term national development strategy that is not rewritten every time a new administration takes office.

Such a strategy should prioritize education, agriculture, energy, health care, technology, transportation, and industrial development.

Liberia can not claim economic independence while importing basic food products that could be grown locally, exporting raw materials without processing them, and relying heavily on foreign aid to fund essential public services.

Liberia also needs greater transparency in its international agreements.

Whether a contract involves an American, Chinese, European, African, or Liberian company, citizens should be able to know the terms.

How much revenue will the government receive? How many Liberians will be employed? What protections exist for communities affected by mining, logging, agriculture, or infrastructure projects?

What environmental standards will be enforced? How will the agreement contribute to local capacity rather than merely extract resources?

Sovereignty is weakened when foreign agreements are negotiated in secrecy or when national leaders cannot explain how those agreements benefit the public.

The United States-China dimension should therefore not become a distracting ideological contest.

Liberia should avoid being pressured into choosing one global power over another.

The country’s leaders must reject the false choice that partnership with China automatically means hostility toward the United States, or that cooperation with the United States requires suspicion of China.

The 2008 statement from Sirleaf’s office correctly recognized this point. Liberia has the right to maintain constructive relations with both countries.

What matters is whether these relationships are balanced, transparent, and aligned with Liberian interests.

At the same time, Sirleaf’s later warning about “following” the United States deserves attention because historical relationships can create habits of dependence.

Liberia and the United States share unusually deep ties rooted in Liberia’s founding and in generations of political, cultural, religious, and economic interaction.

These ties can be beneficial, but they can also encourage the belief that Liberia’s future must always be validated from outside.

A mature relationship with the United States should be based on mutual respect, not paternalism.

Liberia should welcome American investment, educational exchange, trade, and support for democratic institutions, while retaining the confidence to disagree when national interests require it.

Similarly, Liberia must engage China with clear-eyed realism.

Chinese investment and infrastructure support can contribute to development, but such engagement should not be romanticized.

Liberia must guard against unsustainable debt, opaque contracts, weak labor protections, environmental damage, and projects that do not build domestic capacity.

The same standard should apply to every foreign partner. The issue is not whether a partner is American, Chinese, European, or African; the issue is whether Liberia’s leaders negotiate responsibly and whether Liberians receive durable benefits.

Ultimately, former President Sirleaf’s two statements can be understood as parts of a larger argument for diplomatic flexibility.

The 2008 statement defended Liberia’s right to cooperate with China without fear of U.S. opposition.

Her later statement calls for Liberia to become more independent in its thinking and more committed to African sovereignty.

Together, they suggest that Liberia should not be trapped by old alliances or new rivalries.

Instead, it should build relationships that serve a national development agenda.

Liberians should therefore listen to Sirleaf’s call for change, but they should also insist on accountability from all leaders, including former leaders who now speak about reform.

The country can not afford another cycle in which politicians condemn failed structures after benefiting from them while in office.

Change must become more than rhetoric. It must mean stronger institutions, transparent governance, productive investment, civic participation, and a foreign policy guided by Liberia’s own priorities.

Liberia does not need to abandon the United States in order to be sovereign, nor does it need to embrace China uncritically in order to be modern.

What it needs is the confidence to engage every nation on equal terms. That is the “respectability” former President Sirleaf invokes: not dependence on one power, not submission to another, but a Liberia capable of deciding its future for itself.

The late Guinean President Ahmed Sékou Touré: “We prefer poverty in freedom to wealth in slavery.”

“A starving child does not ask from which country comes his bread.” Former President of Guinea Ahmed Sékou Touré.

By: Austin S Fallah – True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

Former President Charles Taylor, in an interview in Nigeria during his exile in that country, said, ” A Liberian, unless you have it right with the United States, until the United States understands you, until you understand them, I think there will always be problems, and Liberia will not develop. He also said, “There is no neutrality in Journalism in the big countries when it comes to their national security.” During the interview, he made it clear that “No President of Liberia can make it successfully until they are in line with Washington.” Can Liberia or its president develop without Washington? Source: https://youtu.be/w2xNc8Z3BGQ?is=nF13hRtX1i6bGwtt

Former President Sirleaf: Liberia has been doing the same thing over and over, same structures, same type of policies, same type of attitudes, and mindset. It is time for change; Africa is changing, the world is changing, and Liberia can not be left behind. Source: Facebook, Voice of Liberia.https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18DEF7UL35/

Liberia’s historical relationship with Washington need not be understood as a choice between dependency and isolation.

The statements of former President Charles Taylor, former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President George Manneh Weah and President Joseph Nyuma Boakai suggest a third model: sovereign partnership, one in which Liberia actively engages the United States and other international partners for capital, technology, diplomacy and security while retaining domestic ownership of its institutions, resources, employment agenda and development priorities.

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “This country can only be built by Liberians with the help of others.”Global News Network Liberia.

President Boakai: “Growth must come with development, and growth must be equitable.”

President Boakai: “This country can only be built by Liberians with the help of others.”

President Boakai: “We believe we can make the relationship work to our benefit.”

President Boakai:In his January 22, 2024 inaugural address, Boakai made an unusually direct observation: “We believe we deserve more.” Global News Network Liberia. But he immediately balanced that argument with domestic responsibility:

President Boakai:“We cannot ask the United States to do for us what we can do for ourselves.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “We hope our international development partners will assist us in this transformation.”

For President Weah: “Without peace, there can be no progress or development.”

Former President Weah: The 2021 State of the Nation message described Liberia’s foreign policy as engagement with partners: “Liberia remains positively engaged with its partners and friends at the bilateral and multilateral levels.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf:Addressing the U.S. Congress in 2006, former President Sirleaf made an important qualification to the reconciliation project: “But while we seek national unity and reconciliation, we must not sacrifice justice.”

Former President Sirleaf:In an interview with Nigeria’s NTA,former President Sirleaf explained her diplomatic approach:“Together working we can strengthen and deepen the relationship between our two countries and our two peoples.”

The question of whether Liberia can develop without the help and input of Washington, DC, is not merely a foreign-policy question.

It is a question of power, history, sovereignty, national leadership, and Liberians’ responsibility to their own country.

Liberia’s connection to the United States is unusually deep. Liberia, given its name in the 19th century by settlers from the United States and sponsored in part by the American Colonization Society, has long had political, cultural, economic, and social ties with America.

English is Liberia’s official language; the United States influenced the country’s political institutions, and America has remained one of Liberia’s most important international partners.

Because of this history, many Liberians believe that Washington has significant influence over who governs Liberia, which policies succeed, and whether the country receives international support.

Former President Charles Taylor expressed this belief clearly during an interview in Nigeria while he was living in exile.

He stated that a Liberian leader must “have it right with the United States,” arguing that until Liberia and the United States understand each other, Liberia will continue to face problems and will not develop.

He went further by saying that no president of Liberia can succeed unless that president is “in line with Washington.”

On the other hand, former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf argued that Liberia has been repeating the same mistakes: the same structures, policies, attitudes, and mindsets.

She insisted that Liberia must change because Africa is changing, the world is changing, and Liberia cannot afford to be left behind.

At first glance, these statements appear to conflict.

Former President Taylor’s view suggests that Liberia’s future depends on Washington, while former President Sirleaf’s statement emphasizes internal reform and national transformation.

However, the two views can be reconciled. Liberia needs constructive relations with the United States and other international partners, but Washington cannot build Liberia without Liberian leadership, accountability, productivity, and national unity.

Liberia’s development will not come simply from pleasing Washington, nor will it come from rejecting America or pretending that international power does not matter.

The country can develop only when Liberians take responsibility for reforming their institutions while wisely engaging the United States as a partner rather than treating it as a master, a savior, or an enemy.

Former President Charles Taylor’s statement should be understood in the context of Liberia’s political realities.

The United States has played an important role in Liberia for generations.

During the Cold War, Liberia was one of America’s strongest allies in Africa.

Its strategic location on the Atlantic coast, its open-door policy toward American investment, and its historic cultural connection to the United States made it especially valuable to Washington.

Liberia hosted important American communications and security facilities, including the Voice of America relay station and other strategic installations.

American companies also had enormous economic interests in the country, especially in the rubber industry through Firestone.

As a result, Liberian leaders have often believed that maintaining good relations with Washington is essential to political survival and economic stability.

Liberia’s relationship with the United States affects foreign aid, debt relief, international legitimacy, investment confidence, and security assistance, directly or indirectly.

A government that is isolated from Washington may find it harder to attract support from international financial institutions, donor nations, and private investors.

This does not mean the United States controls every decision in Liberia.

Yet it does mean that Washington’s opinion carries weight, particularly in a small, aid-dependent country recovering from war, poverty, weak institutions, and limited infrastructure.

Former President Taylor’s claim, therefore, contains a measure of truth.

A Liberian president who openly antagonizes the United States, violates democratic principles, encourages corruption, undermines peace, or becomes isolated internationally may face serious consequences.

Such consequences may include sanctions, a loss of foreign assistance, travel restrictions, damaged diplomatic relations, and declining investor confidence.

In the modern world, no country develops completely alone.

Even powerful nations rely on trade, diplomacy, technology, foreign investment, and strategic partnerships.

Liberia, with its small economy and substantial development needs, can not ignore the influence of the United States.

However, former President Taylor’s statement becomes problematic if interpreted to mean that Liberia has no agency or that its leaders must simply obey Washington to succeed.

That view reduces Liberia to a dependent state whose destiny is decided elsewhere.

It also excuses Liberian leaders from responsibility for their own failures.

If every economic problem, political crisis, or governance failure is blamed on Washington, then Liberians may overlook the internal causes of underdevelopment: corruption, misuse of public funds, weak public institutions, political favoritism, poor roads, inadequate schools, lack of reliable electricity, land disputes, unemployment, and the exclusion of ordinary citizens from meaningful economic opportunity.

This is where former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s statement becomes especially important.

Former President Sirleaf identified a deeper problem: Liberia has often repeated the same patterns while expecting different results.

That also sounds like one of Hon. Alexander B Cummins the political leader of the Alternative National Congress political part, political, social, and economic important talking points.

The country has changed presidents, political parties, and international partners, but many old habits have remained.

These include centralized political power in Monrovia; a system in which public jobs are often treated as loyalty rewards; poor management of natural resources; weak law enforcement; and a tendency to put short-term political advantage above long-term national planning.

Foreign aid can help repair roads, train health workers, or support schools, but it cannot permanently solve these problems if the underlying attitudes remain unchanged.

Former President Sirleaf’s message is therefore a call for Liberians to look inward.

Development begins with national character, responsible institutions, and a shared commitment to the public good.

Liberia can not become prosperous if public officials treat public money as private property.

It can not attract sustainable investment if contracts are unclear, courts are weak, and businesses must rely on political connections to operate.

It can not educate its young people if teachers are unpaid, schools are neglected, and education policies change with every administration.

It can not create a strong health system if hospitals depend entirely on foreign donors and lack trained local personnel, medical supplies, and accountable management.

The devastating Ebola crisis of 2014 demonstrated both Liberia’s vulnerability and the importance of international partnership.

The United States played a major role in supporting Liberia’s response, including deploying personnel, building treatment units, providing logistical assistance, and helping mobilize international attention.

Without outside assistance, Liberia would have struggled even more severely.

Yet the crisis also revealed the consequences of weak domestic systems.

Liberia’s health infrastructure had been damaged by years of conflict, neglect, and insufficient investment.

Foreign support helped save lives, but the long-term lesson was that Liberia must build a health system capable of protecting its people before the next emergency arrives.

The same principle applies to every sector.

International assistance is most effective when it strengthens local capacity rather than replacing it.

If Washington provides aid for education, Liberia must ensure that schools are managed honestly, teachers are trained, and students learn skills that prepare them for employment.

If foreign investors enter the mining, agriculture, forestry, or energy sectors, Liberia must negotiate fair agreements, protect communities, enforce environmental standards, and ensure that national resources benefit the broader population rather than a small political or business elite.

If the United States supports democracy and elections, Liberian political leaders must accept election results, reject violence, respect the courts, and place the country above personal ambition.

In this sense, Liberia does not need to choose between Washington and self-reliance.

It needs a mature relationship with Washington.

A mature relationship is not based on dependency, fear, or blind loyalty.

It is based on mutual interests, mutual respect, and honesty.

Liberia should welcome American support in areas such as health, education, infrastructure, agriculture, anti-corruption efforts, security-sector reform, entrepreneurship, and technology.

At the same time, Liberia should not shape every national decision merely to satisfy foreign expectations.

A government’s first responsibility is to the Liberian people.

Washington can offer advice, assistance, and partnership, but Liberia must determine its own priorities through democratic institutions and public participation.

For example, Liberia’s economic development should not depend on extracting raw materials and exporting them without building local industries.

The country has rich natural resources, including iron ore, gold, diamonds, timber, rubber, fertile land, and a long coastline.

Yet natural wealth alone does not guarantee development.

Many resource-rich countries remain poor because they mismanage wealth or allow a few individuals to capture it

Liberia must invest resource revenues in roads, electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, and agricultural development.

It must support farmers, especially rural women and young people, so that food production can reduce dependence on imports.

It must invest in vocational education, information technology, and small businesses so that young Liberians can find jobs outside of politics and the civil service.

Washington can assist with these goals, but it cannot create the political will to achieve them.

Only Liberians can do that. The most important question is not whether America will help Liberia.

The more important question is whether Liberians are prepared to build a system worthy of help.

Donors are more willing to invest in countries where funds are used transparently, laws are respected, and projects are completed.

Investors are more willing to create jobs where the government is stable and contracts are honored.

Citizens are more willing to pay taxes and obey laws when they believe leaders are serving the nation rather than themselves.

Development grows from trust, and trust grows from accountability.

Former President Taylor’s comments about journalism and national security also deserve careful consideration.

His assertion that there is no neutrality in journalism in major countries when national security is involved reflects a common concern that powerful countries use media and information to protect their interests.

It is true that media institutions, governments, and international organizations may all have biases.

Liberia should be aware of this reality and should not accept every foreign narrative without question.

However, the answer is not to attack press freedom or to dismiss criticism as foreign interference.

Liberia needs stronger, more independent journalism, not weaker journalism.

A free press can expose corruption, investigate abuse, give citizens information, and hold leaders accountable.

The country’s national security is not protected by silence; it is protected by transparent institutions, public trust, and leaders who govern responsibly.

Ultimately, the statements of former President Taylor and former President Sirleaf can be reconciled by recognizing that both external and internal factors matter.

Former President Taylor was correct that Liberia cannot ignore Washington’s influence.

The United States remains an important diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and security partner.

A president who completely disregards that reality may make Liberia’s challenges more difficult.

But former President Sirleaf was more correct in identifying the central obstacle to lasting development: Liberia must break the cycle of repeating failed policies, outdated structures, and destructive attitudes.

Liberia can develop with Washington, but it can not develop because of Washington alone.

It can also develop without being controlled by Washington, provided that it builds strong institutions and broad partnerships with Africa, the United States, Europe, Asia, regional organizations, private investors, and the Liberian diaspora.

The country’s future should not rest in one foreign capital.

It should rest in the hands of Liberians who are willing to demand better leadership, reject corruption, educate their children, protect their resources, respect the rule of law, and work together across ethnic, political, and social divisions.

The final answer, then, is that Liberia’s development depends first on Liberians.

Washington can be a valuable ally, but it can not substitute for national responsibility.

A Liberian president does not need to be “in line” with Washington in the sense of surrendering the nation’s independence.

Rather, that president must be wise enough to maintain productive international relationships while remaining accountable to the Liberian people.

Liberia will move forward when it combines former President Sirleaf’s call for internal transformation with a realistic understanding of the global influence described by former President Taylor.

True development will come not from dependence on Washington, nor from hostility toward Washington, but from a confident Liberia that leads itself and partners wisely with the world.

Prof. Wilson K. Tarpeh: “Judah did not come from outside the crowd; he came from the table. Be careful with the people you sit with at the table.”

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

“Mothers and family members are not to be used as political abusive play toys. Stop mentioning mothers and family members in political disagreements.”-Austin S Fallah.

“Democracy requires criticism, but democratic criticism should address policies, decisions, conduct, and public accountability rather than descend into personal degradation.”(Personally Crafted/Paraphrased from President Boakai , former President Weah, and former President Sirleaf, public statements).- Austin S Fallah.

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai:“Criticism is not a threat to democracy; it is the essence.”

President Boakai:“We will not shy away from your questions; instead, we will listen. We will not stifle dissenting voices; we will engage with them.”

President Boakai.“We must work together or fail separately.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “We must learn how to celebrate our diversity without drawing lines of division in our new Liberia.”

Former President Weah: “We must respect each other and act as neighbours, regardless of religious, social and economic differences.”

Former President Weah: “How can someone go on Facebook insulting my mother, insulting my children, insulting me, and you agree? And you agree. How?”

Former President Weah: “We must not allow political loyalties to prevent us from collaborating in the national interest.”

Former President Weah: “Learn how to celebrate our diversity without drawing lines of division in our new Liberia.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: “Patriotism does not mean blind loyalty to power.”

Former President Sirleaf: “They believe in a democracy of policies, not personality; merit, not money; action, not words.”

Former President Sirleaf: “Allegations, hate speech, and inciting language have been defining what should be a proud moment in our history.”

Hon. Musa Hassan Bility: Publicly stated that insults are harmful to political discourse, February 2026: “We must distinguish between the right to oppose and the right to demean. Between criticism and cruelty. Between dissent and degradation.”

Hon.Musa Hassan Bility: On a “culture of noise and insult” — April 2025: In a statement explaining his departure from Nimba during the senatorial campaign, Hon. Bility said: “I could never have competed with those who only show up beating drums, tapping horns, and trading insults in the streets. That has never been my style, and it never will be.”

Hon.Bility also described what he was refusing to participate in as:
“a culture of noise and insult.” – FrontPageAfrica.com on April 21, 2025, which attributed them directly to Hon. Bility.

Hon. Bility: “ideas, policies, records, character and the sovereign power of the ballot box, not through insults, intimidation or attempts to monopolize the opposition.” The Analyst reported this on September 29, 2026.

Hon.Simeon Freeman — “Insult begets insult and violence begets violence.”

Hon. Freeman: “Insulting a sitting public official and encouraging our followers to do the same is not healthy for our democracy.”

He also emphasized the responsibility of political communicators: “Our children are listening to the radio and TV. They are on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. We must take responsibility for what we say.”

Hon. Alexander Torbor Kun: “Liberian politics is full of undermining and political witch hunts, and that is not the essence of political democracy. Liberians can do better.”

FrontPage Africa interviewed ordinary Liberians about political rhetoric and public dissatisfaction. Gadeh Moses Hopeyellomi, identified as a resident of Via Town, stated: “Going on social media and using all sorts of bad language on our leader is not the right way.”

Hon. Edward Wesee: “Social media and technology are for positive engagement and solving problems, and they are not for insults and setting traps for others.”

Political disagreement is normal in every democratic society.

In fact, disagreement can signal intellectual life, civic freedom, and public engagement.

Citizens do not always see national problems in the same way because they come from different communities, generations, educational backgrounds, economic circumstances, and political experiences.

Some may support one political party because they believe it offers a better path for development. In contrast, others may support another party because they believe it protects their interests or represents their values. Such differences should not be feared.

However, political disagreement becomes dangerous when it is transformed into a battlefield of insults, humiliation, abusive language, and attacks on family members.

In Liberia, young people and adults must understand the difference between disagreeing with an idea and destroying another person’s dignity.

The contrast between constructive political discourse and destructive political discourse is especially important in the age of social media.

Constructive discourse focuses on policies, leadership records, national priorities, and solutions.

Destructive discourse focuses on personal attacks, vulgar language, tribal hostility, false accusations, and insults directed at parents, particularly mothers.

One approach strengthens democracy and national unity; the other weakens both. One prepares Liberia for development and international respect; the other presents the country as divided, angry, and unwilling to mature politically.

If Liberia is serious about changing course and catching up with other nations in the 21st century, its people must replace a culture of online abuse with one of responsible civic engagement.

The first major difference between constructive and destructive political speech is the purpose behind the communication.

Constructive political discussion is intended to persuade, inform, and improve society.

A person may criticize a president, senator, representative, minister, community leader, or political party, but the criticism should be connected to facts and public concerns.

For example, a citizen can ask why roads remain unfinished, why schools lack materials, why health facilities need improvement, or why young people struggle to find jobs.

These are serious national questions. They invite discussion about government performance and encourage leaders to explain their decisions.

When citizens raise such concerns respectfully, they contribute to accountability.

Destructive political speech, by contrast, often has no purpose beyond embarrassing or provoking another person.

It may begin with a disagreement over elections, party loyalty, or a government decision, but it quickly moves away from the issue.

Instead of discussing a policy, people insult one another’s intelligence, appearance, family background, or parents.

In many cases, a person’s mother becomes the target of vulgar language.

This kind of behavior is deeply troubling because mothers are widely respected in Liberian society.

They represent sacrifice, care, discipline, and family dignity.

Even when people disagree strongly, dragging someone’s mother into political arguments does not prove intelligence or loyalty.

It only reveals a lack of self-control and respect.

The harmful practice of insulting female parents also creates a painful contradiction.

Many of the same people who publicly insult someone else’s mother may claim to respect women, value family, or support national unity.

Yet respect is not demonstrated only during ceremonies, religious services, or public speeches.

It shows up in daily behavior, including online.

A person who uses offensive language against another person’s mother is not simply attacking an individual; that person is attacking the values of dignity and mutual respect that hold communities together.

Liberians should remember that political parties will change, leaders will come and go, and election seasons will pass. Still, careless language can damage families and communities for years.

Another important comparison concerns social media.

Social media can be a powerful instrument for education, communication, business, advocacy, and civic participation.

It allows Liberians at home and abroad to exchange information quickly.

Students can access educational resources. Entrepreneurs can advertise their products and services.

Journalists can share breaking news. Community organizations can mobilize support for development projects. Citizens can raise awareness about corruption, poor public services, gender-based violence, disability rights, environmental concerns, and youth unemployment.

Political leaders can also use social media to explain policies and listen to public concerns.

In this positive sense, social media can help strengthen the relationship between citizens and government.

However, social media can also become a platform for careless and harmful behavior.

Instead of being used for learning and national development, it is sometimes used to spread rumors, insults, fabricated stories, and videos designed to disgrace others.

Comment sections often become places where people compete to produce the most offensive statement rather than the most thoughtful argument.

This is not freedom of expression at its best. Freedom of expression carries responsibility.

A society cannot benefit from speech that intentionally humiliates people, promotes hostility, or turns every political discussion into a personal fight.

The difference is clear: responsible social media use contributes to national development, while irresponsible use drains national energy.

A young person who spends hours insulting political opponents online may feel temporarily powerful. Still, that activity does not create employment, improve education, repair roads, attract investment, or strengthen public institutions.

On the other hand, a young person who uses the same platform to discuss entrepreneurship, technology, agriculture, education, public health, and good governance can positively influence others.

The internet offers Liberian youth access to the world.

It would be unfortunate to use such an opportunity mainly for behavior that brings embarrassment rather than progress.

Liberia’s international image is also shaped by how its citizens communicate online.

In today’s world, social media is not as private as people sometimes imagine.

A comment written in Monrovia, Gbarnga, Buchanan, Voinjama, Kakata, Harper, Robertsport, Bong Mines, Harbel, Gbatala, Arthington, Kolahun, Kpadamai, Foya, Sulomah, River Gee, Sinoe, Paynesville, Logan Town, 12th Street, UL Campus. People in the United States, Europe, Asia, other African countries, and across thee diaspora can reach Waterside, Todee, Tapitah, Dambalah, Gbapolu, Big-va-le-yeh, or any Liberian community within minutes.

Potential investors, development partners, universities, employers, and international organizations often observe how citizens speak about their country and one another.

This does not mean Liberians should hide their problems or refuse to criticize leaders.

Every nation has challenges, and honest criticism is necessary for improvement.

But there is a difference between exposing a problem and displaying a culture of uncontrolled abuse.

Countries that make progress are not countries where everyone agrees.

They are countries where people learn to manage disagreement through institutions, evidence, debate, and compromise.

In mature political environments, citizens can strongly oppose a leader without calling that leader’s supporters worthless.

They can criticize a policy without insulting the families of those who hold different opinions.

They can demand accountability without spreading false information. Liberia can learn from this principle.

The nation does not need silence; it needs better speech. It does not need blind support for leaders; it needs informed citizens. It does not need political hatred; it needs political maturity.

A useful comparison can also be made between temporary political loyalty and permanent national identity.

Political parties are important in democratic systems because they organize ideas and offer citizens choices.

Yet party membership should never be stronger than national responsibility.

A Liberian remains a Liberian before, during, and after elections.

Supporting a candidate should not require hating on another citizen.

Celebrating a political victory should not require humiliating those who lost.

Likewise, disappointment after an election should not result in threats, insults, or attempts to make the country ungovernable.

National development requires citizens to think beyond the next campaign season.

This is particularly important for young people.

Liberia has a youthful population, and young Liberians have tremendous influence over the country’s future.

They are active on Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Instagram, X, YouTube, and other digital platforms.

Their words can shape public opinion, influence their peers, and either calm or intensify political tension.

Young people should therefore see themselves not merely as party defenders but as future leaders, professionals, parents, teachers, lawmakers, entrepreneurs, and community builders.

A young person who learns to debate respectfully today is developing the leadership habits needed for tomorrow.

By contrast, a young person who becomes known only for insulting others online may damage his or her own reputation, educational opportunities, and professional future.

Adults also have a major responsibility.

It would be unfair to place the burden only on young people when many adults contribute to the culture of abuse.

Some older citizens, political actors, and public figures use inflammatory language that encourages their followers to behave badly.

When respected individuals insult opponents or mock their families, they send the message that abusive speech is acceptable.

Adults should instead model discipline. Parents, teachers, religious leaders, traditional leaders, journalists, and political leaders all have a role to play in teaching that disagreement does not justify disrespect.

The values taught in homes, schools, churches, mosques, workplaces, and public forums must be reflected online as well.

The need for responsible conduct becomes even more serious when considering Liberia’s long-term national recovery and development.

Mr. Herman Cohen, who served as the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in 1990, warned Liberians that if violence reached Monrovia, the country would face serious trouble for years.

Without revisiting the history behind that statement, its central lesson remains relevant: national instability and institutional damage can have consequences that last far beyond the moment of crisis.

Liberia therefore cannot afford to normalize language that creates hatred, encourages division, or makes violence appear acceptable.

Words do not always lead to conflict, but reckless words can prepare the emotional environment in which conflict becomes easier to imagine and harder to prevent.

The better path is to build a political culture based on what may be called “firm respect.” Firm respect means citizens should not be afraid to criticize.

They should ask difficult questions, investigate public spending, challenge poor leadership, reject corruption, and demand better services.

But they should do so without stripping others of their humanity.

A citizen can say, “I disagree with this government policy because it has not created enough opportunities for young people,” rather than using insults.

Another citizen can say, “I support this leader because of the development projects I have seen, but I believe more must be done,” instead of attacking anyone who holds a different view.

This kind of language is not weakness. It is discipline.

Liberia can also encourage better public discourse through education and digital literacy.

Schools and universities should teach students how to evaluate information, recognize misinformation, debate ideas, and communicate responsibly.

Respectful civil society organizations can organize forums where young people from different political backgrounds discuss national issues without hostility.

Media institutions can promote programs that focus on policy rather than political drama.

Political parties can train their supporters to avoid hate speech and misinformation.

Social media users can report abusive content instead of sharing it for entertainment.

These actions may appear small, but together they can help change national habits.

Ultimately, Liberia’s future will not be determined only by elections, political parties, or government officials.

It will also be shaped by the everyday behavior of ordinary citizens.

Every comment, post, video, voice note, and public statement contributes either to a culture of dignity or a culture of disrespect.

Liberians must decide which culture they want to pass on to the next generation.

The nation cannot move forward if citizens use every political difference as an excuse to insult one another and denigrate parents, especially mothers, in public spaces.

Liberia deserves political debate that is intelligent, courageous, and respectful.

Its young people deserve role models who show that one can disagree without becoming abusive.

Its mothers deserve honor rather than being used as targets in political quarrels.

Its social media platforms should become spaces for knowledge, innovation, accountability, and national progress, not places for empty behavior that produces no benefit for the country.

Political disagreement will always exist, but abuse does not have to exist with it.

By choosing ideas over insults, facts over rumors, and national unity over political hatred, Liberians can present a stronger image to the world and help build the stable, dignified, and progressive nation they desire.

Courtesy of Mr. Jerome Gayman: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BuZd5aAw9/

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “Growth must come with development, and growth must be equitable. We will welcome Foreign Direct Investment but in a partnership that will ensure our people benefit fully from our resources.”

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil:fallahas@yahoo.com

President Boakai: “To the business community, we say the country is always open to business – legitimate business that links to our development agenda, creation of wealth, increased productivity, and serious participation of Liberians in the economy.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “To the private sector, I say to you that Liberia is open for business. We want to be known as a business-friendly government.”

Former President Weah:“An environment that will be conducive for the conduct of honest and transparent business.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf:“The private sector will be the engine of our country’s growth.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf:“Sustainable and broad-based”
because it can:”Engage and empower a wider range of actors within the community.”

Hon.Augustine Kpehe Ngafuan-Minister of Finance and Development Planning: “The ultimate measure of our progress is the extent to which these gains translate into improved services, greater economic opportunities in terms of job creation, and better living conditions for our citizens and residents.”

Hon. Ngafuan:“Unpaid government obligations can leave businesses unable to service their bank loans.”

Hon. Ngafuan: “We came here in a spirit of partnership, accountability, and shared ambition to build an Africa that is prosperous, inclusive, and resilient.”

Former Finance Minister Samuel D. Tweah Jr.: “The involvement of the private sector will help the Liberian Government to achieve its Pro-Poor Agenda.”

Hon. Tweah:“Robust collaborative efforts of both the private sector and government”

Hon.Tweah: “Our goal is to increase growth that is sustainable and inclusive.”

Former Finance Minister Boima S. Kamara: “As long as we remain reliant on the extractive industries to drive growth, we are vulnerable.”

Hon. Kamara: “The way to build a resilient economy is to diversify and leverage on our comparative advantage as a country—and that would be agriculture.”

Hon.Elie E. Saleeby:“We must also get rid of the belief and attitude that it’s the government’s duty to provide, and ours to consume and criticize.”

Hon. Saleeby:“If the economy of Liberia will make a significant and sustainable turnaround, Liberians must change their attitudes and concept of citizenship, and its duties and responsibilities.”

Hon. Saleeby:“De-dollarization is not going to solve all our problems. What we need is prudent and sound fiscal discipline.”

Professor Wilson K. Tarpeh:
“The Liberian government remains committed to providing the necessary environment that will promote sustainable business sector intended to stimulate the Liberian economy.”

Dr. Togba-Nah Tipoteh: “Liberia belongs to all Liberians and all Liberians have [the] right to all of the resources in Liberia.”

Dr. Tipoteh:“Good leadership, good governance calls for taking action to ensure that all Liberians have equal access to all of Liberia’s resources through the market place and the ballot box.”

Dr. Tipoteh:“My leadership works for adding value to all of resources, as in the education of our human resources and as in the promotion of manufacturing under Liberian ownership, using our raw materials here instead of exporting them.”

Dr. Toga Gayewea McIntosh:“Where we are today, we have a Finance and Development Planning Minister, who is strong in Finance but very weak on the programming side.”

Joseph E. Stiglitz — Nobel Prize-Winning Economist:“developing countries and emerging markets do not get compensated adequately for their natural resources”

Paul Collier — Oxford Development Ecgives perhaofficial’s home area’s home area’s home area’s home area’s home area’s home areatarkest historical warning:
“If we look at the history of resource extraction in Africa and elsewhere, it is not a happy history. In fact, it is a history of plunder.”

Dani Rodrik — Harvard Economist: Rodrik makes the enterprise/institution connection explicit: “All instances of successful development are ultimately the collective result of individual decisions by entrepreneurs to invest in risky new ventures and try out new things.”

Liberia is not poor because it lacks resources.

It possesses fertile agricultural land, timber, iron ore, gold, diamonds, a long coastline, and a youthful population capable of producing far more than the country currently consumes.

Yet the existence of resources has never automatically guaranteed national development.

Many countries rich in minerals, forests, and strategic geographic locations remain burdened by poverty because the benefits of productto reduce salariesolitical mattersal class.

Liberia’s central challenge, therefore, is not merely to discover or extract more resources; it is to build an enterprise economy supported by mature political inseemonsible public budgeting, and an informed citizenry.

An enterprise economy is one in which citizens are free and encouraged to create, invest, trade, innovate, and compete under fair rules.

It does not mean abanthe doning the poor or allowing powerful businesses to exploit workers and communities.

Rather, it means that government creates the conditions under which ordinary people, not only politically connected elites, can participate in economic life.

Such a system requires secure property rights, dependable roads, access to finance, transparent regulation, credible courts, effective schools, and a public budget that gives priority to national development instead of political patronage.

tish PrMinister Margaret Thatcher repeatedly emphasized this connection between enterprise and national progress.

In her remarks to world leaders on the enterprise economy, she contrasted countries such as Russia and Angola, which were associated with highly centralized economic systems, with Japan and Taiwan, whose growth demonstrated the power of private initiative, production, savings, trade, and competitive enterprise.

Her essential argument was pellucid: societies that suppress individual enterprise and place too much economic power in the hands of the state tend to stagnate, while societies that permit people to work, invest, and create are more likely to advance.

PM Thatcher’s comparison remains relevant to Liberia, though it must be applied thoughtfully rather than mechanically.

Liberia is not Russia, Angola, Japan, or Taiwan.

Its history, population, infrastructure, and political institutions are different.

Nevertheless, the underlying lesson is valuable.

A country can not tax, borrow, owomen-ownedits way into prosperity if its people have limited opportunities to produce wealth.

Government can redistribute only what the economy first creates.

If farms are unproductive, businesses can not obtain credit, roads are impassable, contracts are unreliable, and public revenues disappear into private accounts, then the nation’s resources will remain trapped in the pockets of the select few instead of reaching the plates, education, and homes of every Liberian.

The contrast between Angola and Japan is especially instructive.

Angola has long possessed substantial petroleum and mineral resources, yet resource wealth has not always translated into broad social progress.

The country’s history demonstrates the familiar resource curse, in which revenues from extractive industries strengthen political elites while failing to create diverse employment, durable institutmostble public services.

When national wealth comes mainly from oil, minerals, or concessions, leaders may become avaricious and citizens may be excluded from meaningful economic participation.

The state can grow dependent on rents rather than on the productive energy of its people.

Japan, by contrast, rose from the devastation of World War II to become a major industrial power not because it possessed extraordinary natural resources, but because it developed human capital, industrial capacity, technology, infrastructure, and a culture of disciplined production.

Its success showed that a country’s greatest resource is often its people.

Taiwan offers a similar example. Through land reform, investment in education, export oriented manufacturing, support for small and medium-sized businesses, and strategic state policies, Taiwan moved from agricultural poverty toward industrial sophistication.

The comparison is not meant to suggest that Liberia should imitate every Japanese or Taiwanese policy.

It should instead recognize that prosperity is more durable when it is built on learning, entrepreneurship, productivity, and institutions rather than on the extraction of raw materials alone.

Russia presents another cautionary comparison.

The Soviet economic model concentrated major decisions in the hands of the state.

Central planners determined what would be produced, where it would be sent, and at what price it would be sold.

Although this system achieved certain industrial and military goals, it often lacked the flexibility, innovation, and consumer responsiveness that a competitive economy encourages.

Bureaucracies can become garrulous in their promises but ineffective in implementation.

They may generate reports, committees, and regulations while neglecting the practical needs of farmers, market women, artisans, manufacturers, and young entrepreneurs.

Liberia must avoid an incogitant approach in which policies are announced without considering their likely consequences for ordinary citizens.

At the same time, Liberia should not confuse enterprise with indifference.

A purely insouciant government that assumes markets will solve every problem without public investment would fail the people.

Markets require rules, and enterprise requires a foundation.

A farmer can not compete if farm-to-market roads are destroyed during the rainy season.

A student cannot become an engineer or entrepreneur if schools are underfunded.

A small business owner cannot expand if electricity is unreliable, the tax system is confusing, and unofficial fees are demanded at every stage of operation.

The role of government, therefore, is not to replace enterprise but to enable it.

A sagacious government recognizes that public authority should be used to provide essential services, enforce fair rules, and invest in the nation’s long-term productive capacity.

This is where political maturity becomes indispensable.

Liberia’s political culture must move beyond election season rhetoric, partisan insults, and the vituperative exchanges that often consume public debate.

Political disagreement is natural in a democracy, but it should not become vitriolic hostility that prevents cooperation on national priorities.

Citizens should expect their representatives to debate vigorously while remaining focused on policy.

The quality of democracy cannot be measured only by whether elections are held; it must also be measured by whether elected officials govern with perspicacity, integrity, and a sense of responsibility to future generations.

Liberia’s budget hearings and public discussions must therefore focus squarely on the nation’s social and economic development.

A national budget is not simply a list of expenditures.

It is a moral and political document that reveals whom a government values and what it considers important.

If a budget allocates substantial funds to salaries, allowances, luxury vehicles, travel, and politically convenient projects while schools lack materials, hospitals lack medicine, and communities lack clean water, then the budget reflects distorted priorities.

The result is often a lugubrious cycle: citizens lose confidence in government, public institutions weaken, and national development is delayed.

Every item of pork in the budget must be weeded out. Pork-barrel spending is especially deleterious in a country with limited revenues and extensive development needs.

It redirects public money toward narrow political interests instead of projects that produce broad national benefits.

A road should be funded because it connects farmers to markets, not because it passes through the home area of a powerful official.

A health clinic should be built where medical need is greatest, not where it will generate the most electoral gratitude.

Scholarships should be awarded through transparent standards, not through political loyalty. Public money must serve the public.

This does not mean that legislators should ignore the concerns of their constituencies.

Representatives have a duty to understand local needs.

However, they must be circumspect in distinguishing legitimate constituency development from pork-barrel patronage.

The former promotes public welfare through accountable investments; the latter purchases political support with national funds.

Liberia’s legislature must develop transparent criteria for capital spending, publish project costs, require independent audits, and ensure that citizens can track whether approved projects are actually completed.

In this context, the national legislature should seriously consider Senator Abraham Darius Dillon’s proposal for salary reduction.

The proposal is important not only because it may save public funds, but because it raises an ethical question: should public officials in a developing country enjoy compensation and privileges that appear disconnected from the economic conditions of the population they serve?

A salary reduction for senior officials will not, by itself, transform Liberia’s economy.

The country’s structural problems are larger than legislative payroll.

Yet symbolism matters in public life. When leaders accept shared sacrifice, they strengthen public trust and demonstrate that service is not merely a route to personal enrichment.

Critics may argue that reducing salaries could make public service less attractive or encourage corruption.

That concern deserves consideration. Public servants should be paid adequately enough to perform their duties with dignity and independence.

However, this argument should not become an excuse for excessive compensation, unaccountable allowances, or privileges that separate leaders from citizens.

The proper solution is a rational and transparent compensation system: fair base salaries, clearly defined benefits, public disclosure, strict conflict-of-interest rules, and firm penalties for corruption.

Such reform would be more effective than either reckless cuts or complacent acceptance of excessive spending.

Liberia also needs to broaden the meaning of enterprise beyond large foreign concessions.

Foreign investment can contribute to development, especially in mining, agriculture, energy, telecommunications, and infrastructure.

But an economy dependent entirely on multinational companies is vulnerable. Commodity prices can fall, concessions can be poorly negotiated, and profits can leave the country.

Liberian development must include local farmers, fishing communities, small manufacturers, construction workers, transport operators, information technology professionals, and women owned businesses.

The objective should be to turn Liberians from spectators in their own economy into active producers and owners.

Agriculture should be central to this strategy. Liberia imports food that its own soil could help produce.

Supporting agriculture requires more than speeches encouraging people to farm.

It requires land security reforms, improved seeds, extension services, storage facilities, rural credit, irrigation where appropriate, farm-to-market roads, and market information.

It also requires policies that encourage value addition. Rather than exporting raw cassava, cocoa, rubber, timber, or palm products with little processing, Liberia should seek opportunities to process more of its own output.

This would create jobs, increase incomes, and reduce dependence on imported goods.

Education is equally vital. An enterprise economy cannot thrive if the majority of young people leave school without functional literacy, numeracy, technical skills, or digital competence.

Liberia needs an educational system that prepares students not only for public sector employment but also for productive work in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, services, and technology.

A pertinacious commitment to education must survive changes in administration.

Too often, promising policies are abandoned when political leadership changes.

National development requires continuity.

The temptation to seek quick solutions must be resisted.

It takes temerity to confront entrenched interests, especially those who benefit from opaque budgets, monopolistic concessions, and political favoritism.

Reformers may face criticism from those who prefer the existing arrangement.

Yet courage without wisdom can be dangerous. Liberia needs leaders who are both bold and prudent leaders prepared to challenge corruption but careful enough to design reforms that can endure.

This combination of temerity and circumspect judgment is the essence of responsible leadership.

Ultimately, Liberia’s future depends on whether it can convert its natural wealth into human development.

The country’s minerals, forests, land, and waters should not enrich only a privileged few.

Their value must be reflected in nutritious food for children, well-equipped schools, accessible health care, decent housing, reliable electricity, safe roads, and dignified jobs.

That transformation will not occur through slogans or through the accumulation of government offices.

It will occur when public institutions become accountable, when the national budget reflects national priorities, when wasteful pork is eliminated, when legislators embrace reforms such as Senator Dillon’s salary reduction proposal, and when citizens are empowered to build enterprises of their own.

PM Margaret Thatcher’s comparison of Russia and Angola with Japan and Taiwan points toward an enduring lesson: nations rise when their people are allowed and equipped to create, produce, save, invest, and innovate.

Liberia should absorb that lesson while shaping an economic model consistent with its own democratic aspirations and social needs.

Its path should be neither uncontrolled private greed nor suffocating state control.

It should be a balanced enterprise economy in which government serves the people, markets create opportunity, and national resources become the foundation of shared prosperity.

Economic concept: Central banks worldwide use monetary-policy instruments to influence financial conditions and inflation expectations.

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

Economic growth and inflation -January 26, 2026: In his 2026 Annual Message, President Boakai reported: “We are proud to announce that the economy grew by 5.1 percent in 2025.” He attributed the growth to “significant gains in mining, agriculture, fisheries, and services.”
He also reported: “Inflation fell to 4 percent by December 2025 – the lowest in over two decades, down from 10 percent when we took over in 2024.” The President connected these developments with monetary and fiscal policies and lower import costs.

Liberia’s productive capacity — March 29, 2024
In a BBC interview, President Boakai stated:
“Liberia has the potential to feed the world if its endowments are managed well.” He specifically pointed to Liberia’s fertile soil and land and its capacity to produce rice.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting focused on agriculture, President Boakai stated: “Agriculture remains one of the most important sectors of our economy.” He added: “Our objective must be to ensure that farmers receive the support they need to increase production and contribute meaningfully to national development.”

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai:Prices and affordability – September 2, 2025“These reductions represent my government’s commitment to ensuring that the ordinary Liberian family has access to affordable food.”

Commodity prices and global economic forces — January 27, 2025: In his 2025 Annual Message, President Boakai stated: “Despite global trends affecting commodity supply and prices, we have seen consistent declines in the costs of essential commodities, including rice and petroleum products.”

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “At the same time, we are working with producers and importers to maintain fair and sustainable trade practices that safeguard continuous supply.”

Former President George Manneh Weah, in his July 2018 address on Liberia’s economic situation, stated:
“The prices and demand for our exports are determined and affected by factors beyond our borders, and are therefore beyond our control.”He continued: “Slumps in demand for the products which utilize our raw materials will always result in externally-generated shocks to our economy.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: Trade Deficit: Former President Weah stated, “For many decades, we have incurred trade deficits because we import more than we export.”

Former President George Manneh Weah:— Domestic Production and Supply: “The key to success in this endeavor is for Liberians to produce more goods and services locally, so that we reduce our importation of goods and services from abroad, whilst at the same time increasing our exports and adding value to the raw materials that we ship to the world.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, in her Annual Message to the Liberian Legislature, directly referred to supply and demand when discussing the price of rice: “As a result of market forces of supply and demand, the price of butter rice has been reduced from US$35 to US$30.”She immediately linked this to policy measures involving rice imports and domestic production, including opening the rice market to additional importers and establishing a US$1 million facility to purchase paddy rice from local producers.

Central Bank of Liberia — Exchange Rate and Supply & Demand: The Central Bank of Liberia (CBL) stated in November 2024: “The exchange rate is strictly market-determined.” The CBL further explained that foreign currency exchanged for Liberian dollars supports the domestic currency’s value, describing this as evidence of the market-driven nature of Liberia’s exchange rate.

Economic ideas are essential tools for understanding the everyday challenges Liberian households, businesses, students, and policymakers face.

When the price of rice, gasoline, transportation, building materials, or school supplies rises, people naturally ask: Who is responsible?

Is the Liberian government to blame? Are international markets responsible? Is the problem caused by businesses, consumers, wages, the exchange rate, or the supply of money?

Sound economic analysis does not always offer a single answer.

Still, it gives citizens a disciplined way to investigate the causes of price changes rather than relying on rumor or political arguments.

In simple terms, prices tend to rise when demand is strong relative to supply, and prices tend to fall when demand is weak relative to supply.

This basic statement is correct, but it needs careful explanation.

Prices do not change because demand alone rises or falls.

They change because of the interaction between demand and supply.

Furthermore, when economists discuss the overall rise in prices throughout an economy, they use the term inflation, which is mainly a macroeconomic issue.

When economists examine the price of one particular good, such as cassava, cement, or mobile phone service, they are often dealing with microeconomics.

Understanding the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics can help Liberians determine whether a price problem comes mainly from local market conditions, national economic policy, or the global economy.

The concepts of demand, supply, elasticity, wages, money supply, inflation, exchange rates, and production costs have been useful in the past, remain valuable today, and will remain important in the future.

These concepts have helped me and many students in Econ. 203/303 under Professor Dorley; Econ. 204/304 under Professor Yassiah; Econ. 409 and 410 under Professors Tetteh and Sleweon; Econ. 320 under Professor Dukuly; and many other economics courses at the University of Liberia, culminating in my sitting in economics classrooms for academic lectures and grading at the University of Minnesota.

These courses have value beyond academics.

Economic knowledge equips students and citizens to interpret national events, assess government policies, understand business decisions, and participate responsibly in public debate.

Demand and Supply: The Starting Point of Price Analysis:

The first correct principle is that demand and supply jointly determine market prices.

Demand refers to the quantity of a good or service that consumers are willing and able to buy at different prices, holding other factors constant.

Supply refers to the quantity that producers are willing and able to sell at different prices, holding other factors constant.

The market price tends to move toward an equilibrium point where quantity demanded equals quantity supplied.

When demand increases while supply remains unchanged, prices generally rise.

For example, if more Liberian households want to buy rice because incomes increase, population grows, or consumers expect future shortages, demand for rice may rise.

If rice importers and local suppliers cannot bring more rice to the market quickly, the price of rice will likely increase.

On the other hand, if supply increases while demand remains unchanged—for example, because transportation improves, imports become cheaper, or domestic production increases- the price may fall.

However, it is not enough to say that prices rise when demand is high and fall when demand is low.

A price can rise even when demand is falling if supply falls by an even greater amount.

Consider a situation in which the road to a farming community becomes impassable during heavy rains.

Farmers may be unable to transport vegetables to Monrovia.

Even if consumers are not demanding more vegetables, the reduction in supply can cause prices to rise sharply.

Similarly, a global fuel shortage can raise transportation costs, reducing the supply of many goods in Liberia and increasing their prices.

Therefore, citizens should ask two questions whenever prices change: What happened to demand? And what happened to supply?

This approach is more accurate than immediately blaming one person, one business, or one government institution.

Is This Microeconomics or Macroeconomics?

Demand and supply analysis belongs primarily to microeconomics when it concerns individual markets.

For instance, analyzing the price of bread in a particular city, the supply of fish from a particular county, or consumer demand for a certain brand of phone is microeconomic analysis.

Microeconomics studies the behavior of consumers, firms, workers, and specific markets.

However, when economists analyze the general price level across the entire country, unemployment, national income, economic growth, exchange rates, and the money supply, they are dealing mainly with macroeconomics.

Inflation is a macroeconomic issue because it refers to a sustained increase in the general price level, not merely a price increase in one product.

This distinction is important for Liberia. If only the price of onions rises because of a poor harvest or damaged roads, that is mostly a microeconomic or sector-specific supply problem.

But if rice, gasoline, rent, transportation, school fees, imported goods, and many other necessities all become more expensive at the same time, the country may be facing a broader macroeconomic challenge, such as inflation, exchange-rate depreciation, rapid money growth, or international price shocks.

A responsible analysis must recognize that microeconomic and macroeconomic factors can occur together.

For example, a global increase in fuel prices is an international shock, but it affects local transportation costs and the prices of individual goods.

This links global macroeconomic forces to local microeconomic markets.

Wages, Salaries, and Prices: A Necessary Correction:

The statement that prices can fall only if salaries and the money supply move in the same direction is not fully correct.

Prices do not automatically fall simply because salaries fall or because salaries and money supply change in the same direction.

The relationship is more complex.

Wages and salaries can influence prices because labor is an important cost of production.

If wages rise faster than productivity, firms may face higher production costs. Businesses may then increase prices in order to protect their profits.

This situation is sometimes described as cost-push inflation (one of Prof. Dorley’s favorable economicterms), especially when rising wages, fuel prices, imported inputs, or taxes increase production costs.

Yet higher wages do not always cause inflation.

If workers become more productive, for example, if better equipment, training, roads, electricity, or technology allows them to produce more goods per hour, then firms may be able to pay higher wages without increasing prices.

The key concept is not merely wages, but unit labor cost, which measures labor costs relative to output.

If productivity rises alongside wages, price pressure may be limited.

Likewise, falling wages do not guarantee falling prices.

If businesses face expensive imports, high shipping costs, currency depreciation, electricity shortages, or reduced supply, prices may remain high even if workers’ wages decline.

In fact, falling salaries can reduce consumer purchasing power and increase hardship without necessarily solving inflation.

For this reason, economists distinguish between nominal wages, and real wages.

Nominal wages are the amount of money a worker receives.

Real wages represent what that money can actually buy after considering inflation.

A worker may receive a higher nominal salary but still become poorer in real terms if food, transportation, rent, and other prices rise faster than the salary increase.

Money Supply and Keynesian Economic Theory:

The money supply is the total amount of money available in an economy, including currency and certain forms of bank deposits.

Changes in the money supply can affect spending, investment, interest rates, exchange rates, and inflation.

However, the effect is not automatic or identical in every situation.

In the Keynesian tradition, associated with economist John Maynard Keynes, the economy can suffer from weak aggregate demand.

Aggregate demand is the total demand for goods and services in the entire economy.

It includes consumption by households, investment by businesses, government spending, and net exports.

When aggregate demand is too low, businesses sell fewer goods, reduce production, and may lay off workers.

Unemployment rises, incomes fall, and economic growth slows.

Keynesian economics argues that government can play a useful role during periods of recession or high unemployment.

The government may increase public spending on roads, schools, hospitals, electricity, agriculture, sanitation, and other infrastructure.

It may also reduce taxes or provide targeted support to vulnerable households. These measures can raise aggregate demand, create jobs, and encourage businesses to produce more.

Monetary policy can also matter. If the central bank expands the money supply or lowers interest rates, borrowing may become easier, investment may increase, and consumers may spend more.

However, if too much money is created while the supply of goods and services does not increase, more money may chase too few goods.

This can lead to demand-pull inflation(Another Prof. Dorle’s term).

The Keynesian view therefore does not simply say that printing money is always good or always bad.

It emphasizes the condition of the economy.

If there are unemployed workers, unused factories, and weak demand, increasing spending or money availability may raise production and employment.

But if the economy is already producing near its capacity and there are shortages of goods, additional demand can mainly raise prices.

For Liberia, this lesson is highly relevant.

Expansionary government spending may be helpful when it is directed toward productive investments that improve supply capacity, such as farm-to-market roads, ports, storage facilities, electricity, education, health services, and agricultural support.

Such investments can raise output over time. But if money enters the economy without a corresponding increase in domestic production or imports, inflationary pressure may result.

Elasticity: Why Some Prices Change More Than Others:

The phrase “elasticity of economic needs” should be refined. The correct general term is elasticity(This word was often used in our 320 class when discussing Liberia’s economy under Prof. Dukuly(May his soul rest in peace), especially price elasticity of demand, and price elasticity of supply.

Price elasticity of demand measures how strongly consumers respond when the price of a good changes.

If a small price increase causes consumers to buy much less, demand is elastic.

If consumers continue buying nearly the same amount even after the price rises, demand is inelastic.

Basic necessities usually have relatively inelastic demand.

Families may reduce their consumption of rice, fuel, medicine, or transportation only slightly even when prices rise because these items are necessary.

This is one reason why price increases in essential goods can cause severe hardship.

People can not easily stop buying food or medicine.

Luxury goods, by contrast, often have more elastic demand.

If the price of an expensive imported item rises, consumers may choose substitutes, delay their purchases, or stop buying it.

Understanding elasticity helps government officials predict the effects of taxes, price increases, subsidies, and shortages.

Price elasticity of supply measures how easily producers can increase or decrease production when prices change.

Agricultural supply may be inelastic in the short run because farmers can not immediately grow more crops after prices rise. (This concept was introduced to us in our Agricultural Economics classes , Econ 423 and Econ. 424 at the UofL.)

It takes time to prepare land, plant seeds, harvest crops, and transport products to markets.

In the long run, however, supply can become more responsive if farmers obtain credit, equipment, storage, irrigation, roads, and access to markets.

Isoquants(Prof. Tetteh big word as well): Important, but Not for Determining Inflation:

In our Money and Bank class, Econ. 410,in the 1990s at the UofL, there was an intellectual abd academic debate with proven evidence on the role of the Ministry of Finace as the Fiscal policy armed of the government and National Bank(now Central Bank) as the Monetary Policy armed of government.That class produced some of the best minds in monetary and banking economists.

The statement that isoquant lines can be used to determine demand, supply, or general price changes requires correction.

Isoquants are mainly a microeconomic tool used in the theory of production.

An isoquant shows different combinations of inputs, such as labor and capital, that can produce the same quantity of output.

For example, a Liberian rice-processing business may be able to produce the same quantity of processed rice using more workers and fewer machines, or more machines and fewer workers.

Each combination that produces the same output lies on the same isoquant.

Isoquants help firms understand production choices, efficiency, substitution between labor and capital, and the effects of technology.

Isoquants do not directly determine the market price of goods, nor do they directly measure inflation.

Instead, they help explain the supply side of the economy.

If a firm can use labor, machinery, energy, land, and raw materials efficiently, its production costs may decline.

Lower production costs can increase supply and may reduce price pressure.

Thus, isoquants are relevant to production decisions and cost management, but supply and demand analysis, aggregate demand and aggregate supply, monetary policy, and inflation analysis are more appropriate tools for studying economy-wide price changes.

Should Liberia Blame the Government or the Global Economy?

Liberians should avoid automatically blaming either the government or the global economy without examining evidence. Both can influence prices, but their roles differ.

The global economy can affect Liberia through imported food, fuel, machinery, shipping costs, international interest rates, commodity prices, wars, pandemics, and disruptions in global supply chains.

Because Liberia imports many essential goods, global price increases can quickly affect domestic prices.

If the world price of petroleum rises, transportation costs rise.

Higher transportation costs can then raise the prices of food, construction materials, and other necessities across the country.

At the same time, domestic policy matters greatly.

Government decisions can influence taxes, import procedures, road quality, port efficiency, agricultural investment, electricity costs, public spending, exchange rate stability, financial regulation, and anti-corruption enforcement.

If domestic infrastructure is poor, businesses may face high transportation and storage costs.

If the Liberian dollar depreciates significantly against the United States dollar, imported goods can become more expensive.

If policies discourage local production, dependence on imports may deepen.

Citizens should therefore learn to identify the source of a problem.

If international fuel prices rise sharply in many countries, the global economy is likely a major cause.

If neighboring countries have stable prices while Liberia experiences unusually high price increases, domestic policy, exchange rate management, market competition, or local supply problems may deserve closer attention.

The correct response is evidence based analysis, not blind blame.

Economic reasoning gives Liberians the power to understand the forces affecting their lives.

Demand and supply explain how individual markets function.

Elasticity explains why consumers and producers respond differently to price changes.

Wages affect costs and purchasing power, but wage changes alone do not determine inflation.

The money supply influences spending and prices, but its effects depend on production capacity, employment, expectations, and government policy.

Keynesian theory teaches that government action can support employment and growth during weak economic periods, while also warning that excessive demand without sufficient production can create inflation.

Isoquants are valuable tools for understanding how firms combine labor and capital to produce output efficiently, but they should not be confused with tools for directly determining national prices or inflation.

Most importantly, the study of economics teaches citizens to distinguish between microeconomic market problems and macroeconomic national challenges.

The lessons taught in Econ. 203/303, Econ. 204/304, Econ 423/424, Econ. 320, Econ. 409, Econ. 410, and other University of Liberia economics courses are therefore not merely classroom concepts.

They are practical instruments for evaluating the economy, demanding accountable leadership, understanding global pressures, and building a stronger Liberia.

When citizens can analyze prices carefully, they are better able to decide whether the government, international conditions, private sector behavior, or a combination of factors is responsible.

That ability is necessary not only for academic success, but also for informed citizenship and national development.

Dr. Augustine Manneh Sumo: “You, the youths of Liberia, are the catalysts and social engineers of Liberia. Stop being bottled and be a brand of your own.”

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “Public service is a trust, not an entitlement.”
President Boakai used this formulation when commissioning government officials in August 2025, emphasizing integrity, accountability and measurable results.

President Boakai:“From promises to performance, inputs to impact, and excuses to excellence.”
President Boakai used this formulation when signing the 2025 government performance contracts.

“This is your Government. You have the right to expect results.” President Boakai made this statement while discussing government performance and accountability in June 2025.

“The true measure of national development is found in whether ordinary citizens see improvements in their daily lives.” President Boakai made this statement in June 2026 while discussing local governance and rural development.

Former President George Manneh Weah: Warning: ” Do not swear yourself for me; some people died because of this. Be positive.” Remarks at a Church Program.

Former President Weah: “Be positive, be objective, and be able to hold a conversation, sitting with your opponent, understanding that if you can convince him to believe in you, fighting is not the best thing to do; insult is not the best thing to do; we are all one family.” “You can see that we are one family, in a small country, so we should treat each other well.”

President Weah: “Remember when we decided that politics would divide us?” “Who can tell me what happened?” War, and we went to refugee camps, and everyone who tasted that camp – do we want to go back there?” “No.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: “We are a strong and resilient people.” Former President Sirleaf used these words in her September 2014 statement on the Ebola crisis.

Former President Sirleaf: “I believe in the Liberian people. I believe that we are stronger than the greatest threat with which we are currently faced.”
Former President Sirleaf said this during the Ebola crisis in 2014. Her remarks were subsequently reproduced in Liberia’s official presentation to the UN General Assembly.

Hon. Musa Hassan Bility: In July 2026, he argued that Liberia should move away from alliances formed merely for electoral convenience: “Liberia does not need another arrangement that changes face while preserving the same old system.” He followed this with: “Liberia needs a coalition of conviction, discipline, transparency, and purpose.” He made these statements in connection with his call for a more principled opposition coalition.

Hon. Alexander B. Cummings: In discussing his presidential ambitions, he said he wanted to: “fix a broken country and put it on the trajectory for sustained growth and development.” The statement was reported from his remarks at an American Enterprise Institute luncheon. He also stated:
“Liberia is too rich to be listed among the poorest countries in the world.”

Hon. Simeon Freeman: In February 2026, He said: “Liberians want results, not promises.” He continued by arguing that Liberia had changed governments through democratic elections while citizens were still waiting to experience tangible improvements in their daily lives.

Hon. Freeman: “After the Election: Where Are the Results?” Hon.Freeman has also argued that Liberia’s development problem should be examined as an “approach problem”, rather than simply blaming individual corrupt officials.

Liberia stands at a critical juncture in its history, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The country has grappled with an array of self-inflicted national problems that seem insurmountable to many.

As the quote goes, “You cannot solve a problem by creating more problems; you cannot put out a fire caused by kerosene by adding gasoline.”

This sentiment resonates deeply within the context of Liberian society, where both political and social challenges persist.

The urgent need for positive, critical, and innovative thinking is evident as we seek solutions to our nation’s myriad issues.

In exploring these national challenges, it is important to contextualize the Liberian experience.

The historic backdrop of civil unrest, economic instability, and social fragmentation has left marks that are hard to erase.

Yet, the wisdom of certain proverbs reminds us that “one tree can make millions of matchsticks, but it takes one matchstick to burn down millions of trees.”

This analogy serves as a stark reminder that while one individual’s action, positive or negative, can create a ripple effect, we must recognize the potential for change within even the smallest moments.

The current climate can sometimes evoke a sense of akrasia among Liberians, where a lack of willpower leads to inaction despite knowing what ought to be done.

This paralysis often stems from the overwhelming nature of the challenges faced, coupled with a history of unfulfilled promises by leadership.

Yet we must encourage ourselves to break out of this state and actively engage our destiny rather than succumb to despair.

Indeed, the challenge is not merely in solving existing problems but also in fostering a mindset that seeks proactive measures rather than reactive ones.

It is an undertaking akin to fossicking, where one must sift through the debris of the past to uncover viable solutions for the future.

By thinking innovatively, Liberians can repurpose resources and ideas that have failed them in the past.

Liberians must harness the spirit of collaboration and edification for collective self-improvement.

The spirit of desensitization, born out of repeated disappointments, often leads to an alogism, a lack of logical thought and reason, as citizens may question the efficacy of driving change.

This is precisely why consistency in Liberians’ behavior is paramount.

Before placing trust in mere words, let them pay attention to the actions that shape their present situation.

Inaction not only perpetuates the cycle of despair but also fosters an environment where a gobemouche, someone who is gullible or naive, might arise, easily manipulated by false promises and superficial solutions.

To combat this disillusionment, Liberians efforts must focus on exculpating themselves from the chains of negativity and resignation that have historically rendered them powerless.

Real change requires introspection and accountability, not just from their leaders but from every layer of society.

The very structures designed to uphold the status quo must be scrutinized and reformed to promote progress.

It can be challenging to accept that elements of society intended to support people have often contributed to their entrapment in cycles of poverty and corruption.

With this in mind, they must encourage open dialogues that encompass dissent as well as consensus.

Differing opinions must not be viewed as threats; instead, they can be seen as opportunities for growth and understanding.

The absence of dissent often creates an echo chamber where only favorable ideas are accepted, stifling creativity and innovation.

To move forward, Liberians must embrace constructive criticism and accept that the path to prosperity may require questioning and challenging the status quo.

As Liberians, we must resist the temptation to devalue anyone within our community, as everyone’s potential contributes to the vast tapestry of our national identity.

“You don’t know what tomorrow brings,” and every individual, regardless of their current state, has the potential to be a catalyst for change.

We each hold a matchstick of potential; how we choose to wield it will determine whether we illuminate paths to success or perpetuate cycles of destruction.

In embracing a proactive mindset and collective responsibility, we can transform our societal challenges into platforms for innovation.

This does not mean that solutions will come easily, nor should we expect them to be perfect.

The complexities of our situation demand nuanced approaches that appreciate the diversity of our experiences.

For instance, harnessing technology for agriculture and education can sustain economic growth, while fostering artistic and cultural expression can help heal social wounds.

As we look to the future, every well-meaning Liberian must remember that what was meant to bury us may very well become the foundation of our prosperity.

This is a critical perspective to hold as we navigate the trials that lie ahead.

Drawing on the wisdom of our forefathers and cultural icons like the late Prince Nico Mbarga of Nigeria, we understand the necessity of humility in our pursuits. “Don’t be proud because you have it; it comes from God Almighty,” he reminds us, instilling gratitude for the resources and opportunities at our disposal.

Ultimately, we must understand that positive, critical, and innovative thinking can transcend the difficulties we face today.

The journey towards a reformed Liberia begins with a shift in perspective, recognizing that while the fires of our past may rage on, we have the capacity to extinguish them.

Through collaboration, creative problem-solving, and resilience, we will find our way to a thriving future.

Liberia stands on the cusp of potential transformation.

Our collective endeavor must focus not solely on identifying the problems but on developing solutions that harness the talents and aspirations of our citizens.

By exculpating ourselves from blame and embracing personal and collective responsibility, we can foster an environment where innovation flourishes.

It is time to adopt a mindset that reflects the reality that while one matchstick causes destruction, it can also ignite the flame of progress.

Let us commit ourselves to the hard work necessary to forge pathways towards healing and prosperity.

The hope for Liberia rests not solely in the hands of its leaders but within the heart and spirit of its people, each one a contributing factor to the legacy we will leave behind.

Liberating ourselves from the confines of negativity is not just a personal journey; it is a collective mission.

As we stand together, determined to forge a new path for future generations, we must remember the lessons of our past while casting our gaze towards a brighter horizon.

Whether through fostering inclusive dialogue, challenging conformity, or cultivating innovative practices, we have within us the power to change the narrative of our nation.

Let us embark on this journey together, with courage and unwavering resolve.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/18HSumSW1Y/
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DMWyZBLWS/
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19UDhpys3U/

Austin S. Fallah: Ask not, “What can Liberia give me?” But “What can I contribute to Liberia?” Paraphrased from former US President John F. Kennedy, who spoke the famous words, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country,” during his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961.

By: Austin S Fallah: A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, Sr.: “Meaningful youth participation requires more than listening to concerns.”

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: “We are investing in you—through improved education, teacher training, digital skills, job creation, and strong institutions.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “The President said he strongly believes that young people are capable of conquering the world if given a place to stand.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “A true revolutionary is someone who guides and leads people in a peaceful state of mind.”

Former President George Manneh Weah: “Education delayed should not be education denied.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf — to young people: “Be what you want to be; stay the course and don’t be distracted by challenges.”

Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: “The youth of Liberia are our future.”

Dr. Togba-Nah Tipoteh: “The government, the World Bank, and the IMF are still making the gross mistake of saying that Liberia is experiencing progress because the economic growth rate per capita or per person is rising.”

Dr. Henry Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr.:
“Love the people, serve the people, respect the people, and be committed to their welfare.”

Political Advisor Samuel Kofi Woods: Reflecting on his own youth activism. Hon. Woods explained that he began at age eleven through initiatives centered on “clean-up campaigns and empowerment.””

Cllr. Samuel Kofi Woods: “Youth should not merely inherit Liberia’s problems; they must acquire the knowledge, civic responsibility, and peacebuilding skills necessary to transform them.”

Dr. Jarso Maley Jallah — Minister of Education: “Our children are not just the future; they are the present.”

Dr. Jarso Maley Jallah: “This is your moment. Embrace it with courage, curiosity, and commitment. Dream boldly. Learn diligently.”

Hon. Cornelia W. Kruah — Minister of Youth and Sports: “You are not the future of this country. You are the current, the present. You are Liberia.”

Hon. Cornelia W. Kruah: “Whatever Liberia becomes in the next 20 years, it becomes because of the decisions that we make.”

Hon. Bill McGill Jones: “We are solution finders. We are decision-makers, and we are deciding the destiny of our fate.”

Cllr. Jeror Cole Bangalu — former Minister of Youth and Sports
“I urge all Liberian youth to seize the opportunity.”

Hon. D. Zeogar Wilson — Former Minister of Youth & Sports: “I am telling you to tell them to say no to violence and yes to peace.”

Hon. Lenn Eugene Nagbe — Former Minister of Youth & Sports: “Urged young Liberians to pursue technical and vocational education rather than viewing government employment as the only avenue to economic advancement”

Prof. P. L. O. Lumumba: “Moving forward is perilous, moving backward is cowardice, and standing still is suicidal.”

Lee Kuan Yew, former leader of Singapore: “My definition of an educated man is a man who never stops learning and wants to learn.”

Goh Chok Tong: “A young population is a huge asset provided it is properly trained.”

Tharman Shanmugaratnam: “We have to encourage our students to take more intellectual risk.”

From the writings on the intellectual walls of Hon. Edward Wesee and Hon. Alexander Torbor Kun: Our motherland Liberia will not be built by any government alone. It can only be built when educated, disciplined, united people, visionaries, and courageous young Liberians decide that their counties, communities, and nation are worth serving.”

Liberia’s future will be determined not only by government policies, international partnerships, or natural resources but also by the attitudes and actions of its young people.

In Liberia and throughout the diaspora, young Liberians possess remarkable energy, intelligence, creativity, and ambition.

They are students, entrepreneurs, health professionals, engineers, artists, public servants, activists, athletes, researchers, and community leaders.

Yet too often, their achievements are met not with encouragement, constructive criticism, or national pride but with suspicion, gossip, political labeling, personal attacks, and discouragement.

This culture of unnecessary condemnation has become a quiet obstacle to national progress.

Young people must learn to celebrate one another when someone succeeds.

Hailing another person’s achievement does not mean pretending that the person is perfect, ignoring wrongdoing, or abandoning accountability.

Rather, it means recognizing that individual progress can contribute to collective progress.

When a young Liberian earns a scholarship, starts a successful business, develops a medical innovation, receives a professional appointment, publishes research, writes a book, creates jobs, or represents the country positively abroad, that achievement should be viewed as a national asset.

In comparison with many societies that actively promote and support their young achievers, Liberia’s culture of criticism and social division often weakens the very people who could help move the nation forward.

One of the most important differences between developing societies that make consistent progress and societies that remain trapped in cycles of disappointment is how they respond to achievement.

In many countries, people understand that national development requires an ecosystem of encouragement.

This does not mean that those countries are free from jealousy, political conflict, or social inequality.

Every nation has critics, rivalries, and disagreements.

However, successful societies generally create room for talented recognizing achievements, innovation, and public service.

They understand that when a citizen succeeds, the country gains a model, a mentor, a possible employer, a taxpayer, a donor, or a source of inspiration for the next generation.

For example, countries such as the United States, India, South Korea, Rwanda, Nigeria, and Ghana have produced young entrepreneurs, technology leaders, scientists, physicians, and innovators whose work contributes to both national and international development.

In the United States, successful entrepreneurs are often cited as examples of creativity and risk-taking, even when their businesses face criticism or regulation.

In India, networks of educated professionals, investors, diaspora communities, and institutions that value innovation have supported the growth of technology companies.

South Korea transformed itself from a war-torn and impoverished country into a global leader in technology, manufacturing, entertainment, and education partly because it invested heavily in human capital and developed a national culture that valued advancement.

Liberia can not simply copy these countries’ systems because every nation has its own history, resources, and political realities.

However, Liberia can learn from the principle behind their success: development requires recognizing talent, rewarding productivity, and building institutions that let capable citizens contribute.

A country does not become prosperous because its citizens constantly insult one another online and on social media.

It does not produce scientists by mocking students who are trying to learn.

It does not build industries by tearing down entrepreneurs before their businesses have the opportunity to grow.

It does not create a strong health sector by ridiculing doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and public health workers who are attempting to serve under difficult conditions.

Destructive criticism is especially visible on social media. Social media has many positive uses.

It allows young people to communicate across counties and continents, promote businesses, share educational opportunities, discuss public issues, organize charitable projects, and hold leaders accountable.

It can also give ordinary citizens a voice. For Liberians in the diaspora, social media provides an important bridge to home.

It lets them stay connected to family members, local events, elections, cultural conversations, and community needs.

However, social media can also become a marketplace of humiliation.

A young person who announces a new business, academic achievement, professional appointment, or community project may quickly become the target of negative comments.

Instead of asking how to support the project, some people look for reasons to discredit the individual.

Instead of celebrating a graduation, promotion, or award, critics may question the person’s background, political affiliation, family connections, or private life.

Sometimes, the criticism is based on real concerns, but often it is not.

It becomes rhetorical, repetitive, and personal, rather than factual or productive.

This behavior has serious consequences. First, it discourages initiative.

A young person who sees others attacked for trying to succeed may decide that it is safer to remain silent, hide accomplishments, or avoid public service altogether.

Second, it creates division among people who should be cooperating. Rather than sharing knowledge, forming partnerships, or mentoring younger people, individuals become guarded and suspicious.

Third, it sends the message that failure is unacceptable and that success is dangerous. A nation can not develop under such conditions.

Innovation requires risk, and risk sometimes produces failure. If every failed business idea or imperfect project becomes a reason for public ridicule, fewer people will be willing to try again.

Liberia needs a culture that distinguishes between constructive criticism and destructive condemnation.

Constructive criticism is necessary in a democracy.

Citizens have the right and responsibility to question public officials, challenge weak policies, expose corruption, demand transparency, and advocate for justice. Political engagement is not the problem.

In fact, political engagement is essential because government decisions affect education, employment, roads, health care, security, agriculture, and the national budget.

Young people should participate in politics by voting, organizing, constructively debating, and holding leaders accountable.

Yet political engagement must lead to tangible results.

Endless insults, rumors, partisan hostility, and condemnation do not build roads, provide jobs, improve schools, or cure diseases.

A person may write hundreds of angry posts about national problems and still contribute nothing practical to solving them.

Real political participation requires more than emotional speeches and online arguments.

It requires research, policy ideas, community organizing, monitoring public spending, supporting qualified candidates, and demanding measurable outcomes from elected leaders.

This distinction is important because criticism without solutions can become another form of national stagnation.

It is easy to say everything is wrong; it is harder to identify what should be done, who should do it, how to fund it, and how to measure progress.

Young Liberians should, therefore, move from a culture of reaction to a culture of contribution.

Instead of only asking, “Who has failed?” they should also ask, “What can we build to help?”

Instead of only asking, “Who should be blamed?” they should ask, “What skills, resources, and partnerships are needed to improve this situation?”

The comparison with other nations becomes clearer when considering professional achievement.

Many countries proudly recognize their citizens who become millionaires, billionaires, business owners, medical directors, engineers, professors, athletes, inventors, and researchers.

These individuals are not always admired without criticism, nor should they be. Wealth and professional success must come with ethical responsibility.

But the larger point remains: societies benefit when successful people are encouraged to invest, mentor, employ, and innovate.

I remember engaging with two individuals on a social media platform, when I said I supervised and reviewed an organization’s $1.5 billion budget expenditure.

The first thing they said was that it was ” da lie.”

On the same social media platform, some individuals could attest, but they chose to let them chew their own pepper of ignorance.

What those two did not(don’t know) is that I have worked and continue to work in the United States in County, State and Federal Government levels at a financial supervisory level, where I supervised the financial expenditure of a largest state government county and department of employees; in state government as an Internal Auditor; and in the federal government in a sensitive department.

In a county government security apparatus where the federal government awarded me a certificate for contribution to national security.

Those two individuals ill-informed, rhetorical, plenty good-for-nothing, empty criticism, without knowing the facts and condemnation is what I am talking about.

Liberia should likewise be proud when its citizens excel.

A Liberian entrepreneur who creates jobs should be encouraged to expand responsibly.

A Liberian doctor or medical director working to improve health care should be recognized.

A researcher working on infectious diseases, maternal health, agriculture, climate resilience, or education should receive support.

A young person in the diaspora who has gained professional experience should be welcomed as a possible partner in national development rather than treated only as an outsider.

A student who receives an international scholarship should be celebrated because that success can inspire hundreds of others.

The Liberian diaspora has a particularly important role.

Liberians abroad often have access to professional networks, advanced training, financial opportunities, and exposure to institutions that may be stronger or more efficient than those at home.

They can contribute through investment, mentorship, remittances, scholarships, medical missions, technology training, business partnerships, and advocacy.

At the same time, diaspora members should avoid assuming they understand every local challenge better than people living in Liberia.

National development requires mutual respect between Liberians at home and Liberians abroad.

Those in the diaspora may bring resources and experience, while those at home bring direct knowledge of local needs, cultural realities, and daily conditions.

A healthier relationship between these groups would benefit the country.

Rather than competing over who is “more Liberian,” “which party is better,” young people at home and abroad should cooperate around shared goals.

Diaspora professionals can mentor students in Liberia through virtual programs.

Local entrepreneurs can partner with diaspora investors.

Medical professionals abroad can support training initiatives for clinics and hospitals.

Technology workers can help create digital platforms for education, agriculture, commerce, and public information.

Artists and cultural leaders can promote Liberia’s history and identity internationally.

These are practical ways in which unity can become more than a slogan.

The idea of recognizing achievement also applies to political opponents.

In polarized political environments, supporters often see praising someone from another party as a sign of weakness or betrayal.

Yet mature democracies require citizens and leaders to acknowledge good actions, even when they disagree strongly on other issues.

Political rivals can oppose one another’s policies while still recognizing a useful idea, a public service achievement, or a moment of national leadership.

In American politics, as in politics elsewhere, leaders from opposing parties have at times offered limited praise when an opponent took an action they considered beneficial.

Such moments do not erase deep disagreements, but they show that public life does not have to be driven entirely by hatred.

Liberia needs more of this maturity. If a government administration builds a needed road, improves a hospital, expands school access, or negotiates a beneficial agreement, citizens should be able to recognize that accomplishment while still demanding accountability in other areas.

Likewise, if an opposition leader presents a serious, workable policy proposal, the government should consider it rather than reject it simply because it came from a rival.

National progress should be more important than political ego.

Of course, unity must not become an excuse for silence.

Liberia’s history includes civil conflict, corruption, inequality, and institutional weakness.

These issues can not be solved by telling citizens to be positive all the time.

People have legitimate frustrations, and many young people criticize because they care deeply about the country’s future.

The goal, therefore, should not be blind praise. The goal should be responsible citizenship.

Responsible citizens criticize with evidence, speak with respect, propose alternatives, and remain willing to cooperate for the common good.

They do not spread rumors simply for attention. They do not destroy another person’s reputation without proof. They do not treat every achievement as a threat.

Ultimately, Liberia’s young people must decide what kind of national culture they want to create.

They can continue a pattern in which every success is questioned, every ambition is mocked, and every public discussion becomes an argument.

Or they can build a culture of encouragement, accountability, discipline, and cooperation.

The second path is more difficult because it requires humility.

It requires people to celebrate another person’s success even when they are still struggling themselves.

It requires political opponents to acknowledge facts. It requires social media users to think before posting. It requires successful Liberians to give back rather than merely seek applause.

But this is the path that can move Liberia forward. A nation rises when its people learn to see possibility in one another.

Young Liberians, whether in Monrovia, Gbarnga, Buchanan, Voinjama, Harper, Foya, California, Zwedru, Greenville, Bong Mines, Zorzor, Sanniqueleh, Suakoko, Tapitah, River Gee, River Cess, Kpadamai, Gbanga, Firestone, Cotton Tree, Dolo’s Town, Buchana, Tubmanburg, Gbapolu, Robertsport, Minneapolis, Free Town, Guinea, Abuja, Lome, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Paris, Netherlands, Germany, India, Singapore, London, Atlanta, Accra, or anywhere else in the world, should understand that their achievements are connected.

When one succeeds, others can learn. When one creates, others can benefit. When one leads responsibly, others can follow.

Liberia does not need more empty condemnation.

It needs young people who can transform criticism into action, competition into collaboration, and individual achievement into national development.

A person is judged not by the mistakes they make but by who they become after recognizing those mistakes and the changes they make.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18Qqx4YrQu/
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DriGKb2LD/
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17diYVfcqV/

President of Liberia Joseph Nyuma Boakai : “Election is not an event. It is a process which must not be merely observed but monitored over a period of time.” He connected political participation with advancing peace, democratic entitlements, and good governance.

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: fallahas@yahoo.com

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai: In September 2026, Boakai emphasized the importance of a “free, responsible, professional, and vibrant media.” In Liberia’s democratic development, while encouraging journalists to tell Liberia’s story with “truth, balance, dignity, and confidence.”

Liberian political parties — Farmington River Declaration
Liberia’s political parties pledged to a: “NON-VIOLENT, FREE, FAIR, and TRANSPARENT”
electoral process in the 2023 Farmington River Declaration. The declaration involved political parties, Liberia’s National Elections Commission, ECOWAS, and the United Nations.

The UN’s Deputy Secretary-General emphasized:
“The responsibility for a successful and credible election lies not only with the electoral management body but also with the entire range of political parties, civil society – and, of course, voters.”

Inter-Parliamentary Union
The IPU’s Universal Declaration on Democracy states that democracy should be exercised under conditions of:
“freedom, equality, transparency and responsibility”

George Manneh Weah — Former President of Liberia: On responsible political participation: “It requires the fully committed participation of all citizens and the support of Liberia’s friendly partners.” Former President Weah made this statement in August 2023 while discussing the responsibility of citizens and stakeholders for peaceful and credible elections.

“Patriotism does not mean blindly, unquestioningly to power.” — Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

António Guterres — UN Secretary-General: In his 2026 International Day of Democracy message, Guterres stated: “Democracy is more than elections.”

Former South African President Nelson Mandela:
“A real leader uses every issue, no matter how serious and sensitive, to ensure that at the end, the nation should emerge stronger and more united than ever before.”

“Stand up in yours, for Commission’s procedures’s procedures’s procedures’s procedures’s procedures’s proceduresy be human together.”- Desmond Tutu

“Intelligence plus character—that’s the hallmark of true education.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

Liberian politics will not move forward merely because elections are held, political parties are registered, or citizens have access to Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, radio talk shows, and other forms of public communication.

Democracy is not only the right to speak; it is also the responsibility to speak with care, knowledge, and respect for the consequences of one’s words.

Liberia’s political future depends on whether its citizens, leaders, journalists, constructive activists, and diaspora communities can replace reckless political performance with serious democratic engagement.

Too often, the national conversation is dominated by half-hazard commentary from ill-informed individuals who treat social media as a battlefield rather than a civic space.

The concern is not that ordinary people participate in politics.

On the contrary, broad participation is necessary in any functioning democracy.

The danger arises when people with limited knowledge of history, policy, law, economics, and public administration present rumors as fact, insults as arguments, and personal loyalty as patriotism.

When political discourse becomes controlled by political nobodies seeking attention rather than solutions, the entire country pays a price.

Education is not limited to formal degrees.

A person may not have attended college and still possess wisdom, humility, integrity, and a deep understanding of community needs.

Likewise, a person with many academic credentials may still be dishonest, arrogant, or detached from ordinary citizens.

However, political engagement requires a willingness to learn.

It requires citizens to investigate claims, understand institutions, distinguish fact from fiction, expose corrupt individuals who refuse to punish wrongdoing, and contribute meaningfully to national development, no matter how loud that person may be online.

Liberia has endured civil conflict, institutional weakness, economic hardship, corruption, distrust, and social division.

These are not minor matters to be explained away with slogans or partisan insults.

The consequences of political recklessness are profound.

Words can influence voter behavior, damage reputations, deepen ethnic tension, discourage investment, and even create conditions for violence.

A false accusation posted casually on social media can spread through communities with astonishing speed.

By the time the truth appears, the damage may already be done.

For this reason, Liberians must take seriously the social, political, and economic repercussions of the words they are spewing in public forums.

Political criticism is essential, but criticism should not become demonization.

There is a major difference between questioning a government’s budget priorities and calling every official a criminal without evidence.

There is a difference between opposing a president and wishing for national failure simply to embarrass that president.

There is also a difference between demanding accountability and attempting to demon-cratize (self-created word) every person who holds a different political view.

When political opponents are treated as enemies of the nation, democratic competition becomes destructive rather than productive.

The word “demon-cratized(self-created word) captures a troubling tendency in contemporary politics: the effort to turn democratic debate into a contest of moral destruction.

Important issues such as education, health care, youth unemployment, infrastructure, national security, land rights, corruption, and constitutional reform are too vast to be demon-cratized (self-created word).

They can not be resolved by portraying one group as entirely good and another as entirely evil.

Every administration will make mistakes.

Every political party will contain both sincere public servants and self-interested actors.

The duty of citizens is not to unquestioningly defend or automatically condemn.

Their duty is to examine facts, ask difficult questions, and demand better policies.

Unfortunately, some political discussants appear intellectually illiterate in the sense that they lack the discipline of serious analysis.

They may discuss national debt without understanding public finance, speak about the Constitution without reading it, or make claims about elections without knowing the National Elections Commission’s procedures.

They may improvise arguments from fragments of hearsay, screenshots, anonymous recordings, or statements taken out of context.

Such conduct creates confusion rather than enlightenment.

It transforms civic discussion into a competition over who can make the most shocking accusation.

This problem is especially severe on social media because the platforms reward speed, outrage, and emotional reaction.

A careful explanation of a government policy may receive little attention, while an insulting video or inflammatory post may attract copious comments and shares.

Some individuals have learned that anger brings visibility.

They therefore manufacture controversy, use condescending language toward those who disagree, and present themselves as the only honest voices in the country.

Yet volume is not wisdom. A person who insults everyone else is not necessarily courageous; that person may simply lack the capacity to persuade through evidence.

Liberia needs a political culture that values substance over spectacle.

Citizens should ask practical questions: What is the proposed policy?

How will it be funded?

Who will benefit?

What are the risks?

What does the law permit?

What evidence supports the claim?

These questions may sound ordinary, but they are the foundation of responsible citizenship.

They force political actors to move beyond slogans and explain their plans.

They also prevent the public from becoming complacent.

A complacent population allows leaders to operate without scrutiny, while an angry but uninformed population can be manipulated by anyone skilled at emotional propaganda.

At the same time, citizens must resist the temptation to assume that every political disagreement is part of a clandestine conspiracy.

Governments sometimes make poor decisions because of incompetence, limited resources, conflicting priorities, or weak planning, not necessarily because every official is secretly plotting against the country.

Corruption: Expose corruption; provide evidence; and punish wrongdoing through lawful institutions.

However, an atmosphere in which every event is treated as proof of a hidden conspiracy weakens public trust and distracts from real accountability.

When allegations are based only on conjecture, the public becomes unable to distinguish genuine scandal from political fiction.

Responsible engagement also requires leaders to behave differently.

It would be unfair to blame only ordinary social-media users for Liberia’s political problems.

Senior politicians often model the same destructive behavior they later condemn.

They attack opponents personally, use divisive language, make unrealistic promises, and exploit citizens’ frustrations during campaigns.

Some leaders encourage supporters to defend them with implacable loyalty, as if allegiance to a politician were more important than allegiance to the Republic of Liberia.

This is dangerous. No president, senator, representative, party chairperson, or constructive activist should be above criticism.

The nation is greater than any individual politician’s career.

Political leaders should understand that their words carry implicit authority.

When a respected public figure makes an unverified accusation, supporters may act on it.

When a leader ridicules an ethnic group, a region, or a political opponent, that message can spread far beyond the original audience.

Leaders must therefore communicate with discipline.

They should correct misinformation from their own supporters, discourage threats and harassment, and make it clear that political competition must remain peaceful.

A democracy cannot survive if politicians gain power by encouraging citizens to hate one another.

The media also has a central role. Journalism and journalist should not become public relations agents for political parties, nor should they become entertainers who turn every public issue into a shouting match.

Investigative journalism is necessary, especially in a country where public resources must be closely monitored.

But journalism must be grounded in verification, fairness, and context.

Publishing unconfirmed allegations may bring temporary attention, but it can destroy credibility and harm innocent people.

The media should educate citizens about governance, explain legislative decisions, analyze budgets, and provide space for competing ideas without making the public to reduce every disagreement to insult.

Civic education must also be strengthened.

Many Liberians have opinions about politics, but opinions alone do not create informed citizenship.

High schools, universities, churches, mosques, community organizations, radio stations,talk shows, and positive civil society groups should teach citizens how government works.

People should understand the responsibilities of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

They should understand their voting rights, the importance of peaceful transitions of power, and the legal consequences of defamation, threats, and incitement.

Civic education should not be treated as optional. It is as important to democracy as roads are to commerce.

Moreover, Liberia’s young people should be encouraged to participate constructively rather than merely follow political influencers.

Young citizens have energy, creativity, and a strong desire for change.

They can organize community discussions, monitor public projects, promote voter education, and hold leaders accountable through lawful means.

They can use technology to share accurate information rather than false rumors.

They can also reject the false choice between silence and abuse.

One does not have to be silent in order to be respectful, and one does not have to be abusive in order to be bold.

The country must also recognize that political culture is not immutable.

Liberia is not permanently condemned to a politics of insults, rumors, tribal suspicion, and personality worship.

Political habits can change when citizens demand change.

They change when voters refuse to reward candidates who offer only insults and empty good-for-nothing propaganda.

They change when party supporters hold their own leaders accountable.

They change when public officials understand that their performance, not their propaganda, will determine their legitimacy.

Most importantly, they change when citizens reject the idea that cruelty is strength and that decency is weakness.

Decency in political democratic engagement should characterize engagement, not trivialize important issues that are too vast to be reduced to personal attacks.

Decency does not mean avoiding difficult debates. It means debating difficult matters without destroying the dignity of fellow citizens.

It means challenging a policy without attacking a person’s humanity.

It means recognizing that an opponent today may become a partner in nation-building tomorrow.

Liberia’s challenges require cooperation across party lines, generations, regions, and social classes.

Liberian politics will not move forward if public debate remains dominated by ill-informed rhetoric, careless allegations, and individuals who pursue relevance through outrage.

The nation needs citizens who read, listen, verify, reason, speak and write responsibly.

It needs leaders who welcome accountability rather than demand unquestioning loyalty.

It needs media institutions that value truth over sensationalism and young people who see politics as public service rather than a platform for personal hostility.

Liberia can not build a stable democracy through insults, demonization, and endless online conflict.

It can move forward only through knowledge, humility, courage, accountability, and a shared commitment to the common good.